Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort

Background: This study aimed to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy between a Chinese and a Dutch cohort. Materials and methods: Our study includes...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kai Zhang, Rui Chen, Arnout R. Alberts, Gang Zhu, Yinghao Sun, Monique J. Roobol
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2019-09-01
Series:Prostate International
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287888218300588
id doaj-39f3303bd68f4a159167caa3c94a9f32
record_format Article
spelling doaj-39f3303bd68f4a159167caa3c94a9f322020-11-25T01:57:01ZengElsevierProstate International2287-88822019-09-017396101Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohortKai Zhang0Rui Chen1Arnout R. Alberts2Gang Zhu3Yinghao Sun4Monique J. Roobol5Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Urology, Beijing United Family Hospital, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsDepartment of Urology, Beijing United Family Hospital, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China; Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Changhai Road 168, Yangpu District, Shanghai 200433, China.Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, room Na1706, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands.Background: This study aimed to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy between a Chinese and a Dutch cohort. Materials and methods: Our study includes 316 men from Shanghai Changhai Hospital, China, and 266 men from the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. All men had a suspicion for prostate cancer (PCa) and were offered an multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scan. Results: The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different between the two cohorts (P = 0.008). In the Chinese cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the detection rate for high-grade PCa (Gleason ≥7) was 37.3% by systematic biopsy and 35.5% by MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.80 for PCa and 0.75 for high-grade PCa. MRI-targeted biopsy achieved slightly higher sensitivity for PCa (0.82) and high-grade PCa (0.76). In the Dutch cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the high-grade PCa detection rate was 44.4% and 54.5% for systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.93 for PCa and 0.81 for high-grade PCa. By MRI-targeted biopsy, the sensitivity was 0.85 for PCa and 0.97 for high-grade PCa. Conclusions: The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different with more PI-RADS 4/5 in the Chinese cohort. Applying a PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff resulted in a favorable overall sensitivity. MRI-targeted biopsy showed a higher sensitivity in the detection of high-grade PCa than systematic biopsy. The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy for both PCa and high-grade PCa in the Dutch cohort was superior to those in the Chinese cohort. Keywords: Asian, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systemhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287888218300588
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kai Zhang
Rui Chen
Arnout R. Alberts
Gang Zhu
Yinghao Sun
Monique J. Roobol
spellingShingle Kai Zhang
Rui Chen
Arnout R. Alberts
Gang Zhu
Yinghao Sun
Monique J. Roobol
Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
Prostate International
author_facet Kai Zhang
Rui Chen
Arnout R. Alberts
Gang Zhu
Yinghao Sun
Monique J. Roobol
author_sort Kai Zhang
title Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
title_short Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
title_full Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
title_fullStr Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
title_full_unstemmed Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort
title_sort distribution of prostate imaging reporting and data system score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy: comparison of an asian and european cohort
publisher Elsevier
series Prostate International
issn 2287-8882
publishDate 2019-09-01
description Background: This study aimed to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy between a Chinese and a Dutch cohort. Materials and methods: Our study includes 316 men from Shanghai Changhai Hospital, China, and 266 men from the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. All men had a suspicion for prostate cancer (PCa) and were offered an multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scan. Results: The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different between the two cohorts (P = 0.008). In the Chinese cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the detection rate for high-grade PCa (Gleason ≥7) was 37.3% by systematic biopsy and 35.5% by MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.80 for PCa and 0.75 for high-grade PCa. MRI-targeted biopsy achieved slightly higher sensitivity for PCa (0.82) and high-grade PCa (0.76). In the Dutch cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the high-grade PCa detection rate was 44.4% and 54.5% for systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.93 for PCa and 0.81 for high-grade PCa. By MRI-targeted biopsy, the sensitivity was 0.85 for PCa and 0.97 for high-grade PCa. Conclusions: The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different with more PI-RADS 4/5 in the Chinese cohort. Applying a PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff resulted in a favorable overall sensitivity. MRI-targeted biopsy showed a higher sensitivity in the detection of high-grade PCa than systematic biopsy. The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy for both PCa and high-grade PCa in the Dutch cohort was superior to those in the Chinese cohort. Keywords: Asian, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287888218300588
work_keys_str_mv AT kaizhang distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
AT ruichen distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
AT arnoutralberts distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
AT gangzhu distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
AT yinghaosun distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
AT moniquejroobol distributionofprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemscoreanddiagnosticaccuracyofmagneticresonanceimagingtargetedbiopsycomparisonofanasianandeuropeancohort
_version_ 1724976976921362432