% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Tavakoli:181233,
author = {A. A. Tavakoli$^*$ and T. Hielscher and P. Badura$^*$ and
M. Görtz and T. A. Kuder$^*$ and R. Gnirs$^*$ and C. Schwab
and M. Hohenfellner and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$ and D. Bonekamp},
title = {{C}ontribution of {D}ynamic {C}ontrast-enhanced and
{D}iffusion {MRI} to {PI}-{RADS} for {D}etecting
{C}linically {S}ignificant {P}rostate {C}ancer.},
journal = {Radiology},
volume = {306},
number = {1},
issn = {0033-8419},
address = {Oak Brook, Ill.},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2022-01879},
pages = {186-199},
year = {2023},
note = {#EA:E010#LA:E010# / 2023 Jan;306(1):186-199},
abstract = {Background Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System
(PI-RADS) version 2.0 requires multiparametric MRI of the
prostate, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and
dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging sequences; however,
the contribution of DCE imaging remains unclear. Purpose To
assess whether DCE imaging in addition to apparent diffusion
coefficient (ADC) and normalized T2 values improves PI-RADS
version 2.0 for prediction of clinically significant
prostate cancer (csPCa). Materials and Methods In this
retrospective study, clinically reported PI-RADS lesions in
consecutive men who underwent 3-T multiparametric MRI
(T2-weighted, DWI, and DCE MRI) from May 2015 to September
2016 were analyzed quantitatively and compared with
systematic and targeted MRI-transrectal US fusion biopsy.
The normalized T2 signal (nT2), ADC measurement, mean
early-phase DCE signal (mDCE), and heuristic DCE parameters
were calculated. Logistic regression analysis indicated the
most predictive DCE parameters for csPCa (Gleason grade
group ≥2). Receiver operating characteristic parameter
models were compared using the Obuchowski test. Recursive
partitioning analysis determined ADC and mDCE value ranges
for combined use with PI-RADS. Results Overall, 260 men
(median age, 64 years [IQR, 58-69 years]) with 432 lesions
(csPCa [n = 152] and no csPCa [n = 280]) were included. The
mDCE parameter was predictive of csPCa when accounting for
the ADC and nT2 parameter in the peripheral zone (odds ratio
[OR], 1.76; $95\%$ CI: 1.30, 2.44; P = .001) but not the
transition zone (OR, 1.17; $95\%$ CI: 0.81, 1.69; P = .41).
Recursive partitioning analysis selected an ADC cutoff of
0.897 × 10-3 mm2/sec (P = .04) as a classifier for
peripheral zone lesions with a PI-RADS score assessed on the
ADC map (hereafter, ADC PI-RADS) of 3. The mDCE parameter
did not differentiate ADC PI-RADS 3 lesions (P = .11), but
classified lesions with ADC PI-RADS scores greater than 3
with low ADC values (less than 0.903 × 10-3 mm2/sec, P <
.001) into groups with csPCa rates of $70\%$ and $97\%$ (P =
.008). A lesion size cutoff of 1.5 cm and qualitative DCE
parameters were not defined as classifiers according to
recursive partitioning (P > .05). Conclusion Quantitative or
qualitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI was not relevant
for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3
lesion risk stratification, while quantitative apparent
diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were helpful in upgrading
PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 lesions. Quantitative ADC
measurement may be more important for risk stratification
than current methods in future versions of PI-RADS. © RSNA,
2022 Online supplemental material is available for this
article See also the editorial by Goh in this issue.},
cin = {E010 / C060 / E020},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:35972360},
doi = {10.1148/radiol.212692},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/181233},
}