mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers: Our experience in 950 cases

• Main Authors: Pietro Pepe, Giuseppe Candiano, Ludovica Pepe, Michele Pennisi, Filippo Fraggetta
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PAGEPress Publications 2021-06-01
• Series: Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
• Subjects: Prostate cancer; MRI and prostate cancer; PI-RADS score 3; Transperineal targeted biopsy
• Online Access: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/9699

Introduction: The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men with mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 diagnosed by affiliated radiology centers vs radiological reference center was evaluated. Materials and methods: From January 2017 to December 2020, 950 men (median age 64 years) underwent mpMRI for abnormal PSA values (median 6.3 ng/ml). Among the 950 patients who underwent mpMRI 500 were evaluated by a reference center and 450 by outpatient radiological affiliated centers. All the mpMRI index lesions characterized by a PI-RADS 3 underwent targeted cores combined with extended prostate biopsy. Two radiologists of the radiological reference center revised all the mpMRI lesions 3. Results: Overall, 361/950 (38%) patients had a mpMRI lesion PI-RADS score 3: 120/500 cases (24%) vs 241/450 cases (53.5%) were diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers. The detection rate for cT1c csPCa was equal to 26.7% (35/120 cases) vs 16.6% (40/241 cases) in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions diagnosed in the reference vs the affiliated radiological centers (p < 0.05). Among the 241 PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by affiliated radiological centers 86/241 (35.7%) and 36/241 (15%) were downgraded (PI-RADS scores < 3) and upgraded (PI-RADS score 4) by the dedicated radiologists of the reference center. Conclusions: In our series, about 35% and 15% of PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by affiliated radiological centers were downgraded and upgraded when revised by experencied radiologists, therefore a second opinion is mandatory especially in men enrolled in active surveillance protocols in whom mpMRI is recommended to reduce the number of scheduled repeated prostate biopsies.