We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?
Abdominal Radiology 2018 May 12
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine if the ≥ 15 mm threshold currently used to define PIRADS 5 lesions is the optimal size threshold for predicting high likelihood of clinically significant (CS) cancers.
MATERIALS: Three hundred and fifty-eight lesions that may be changed from category 4 to 5 or vice versa on the basis of the size criterion (category 4: n = 288, category 5: n = 70) from 255 patients were evaluated. Kendall's tau-b statistic accounting for inter-lesion correlation, generalized estimation equation logistic regression, and receiver operating curve analysis evaluated two lesion size-metrics (lesion diameter and relative lesion diameter-defined as lesion diameter/prostate volume) for ability to identify CS (Gleason grade ≥ 3 + 4) cancer at targeted biopsy. Optimal cut-points were identified using the Youden index. Analyses were performed for the whole prostate (WP) and zone-specific sub-cohorts of lesions in the peripheral and transition zones (PZ and TZ).
RESULTS: Lesion diameter showed a modest correlation with Gleason grade (WP: τB = 0.21, p < 0.0001; PZ: τB = 0.13, p = 0.02; TZ: τB = 0.32, p = 0.001), and association with CS cancer detection (WP: AUC = 0.63, PZ: AUC = 0.59, TZ: AUC = 0.74). Empirically derived thresholds (WP: 14 mm, PZ: 13 mm, TZ: 16 mm) performed similarly to the current ≥ 15 mm standard. Lesion relative lesion diameter improved identification of CS cancers compared to lesion diameter alone (WP: τB = 0.30, PZ: τB = 0.24, TZ: τB = 0.42, all p < 0.0001). AUC also improved for WP and PZ lesions (WP: AUC = 0.70, PZ: AUC = 0.68, and TZ: AUC = 0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: The current ≥ 15 mm diameter threshold is a reasonable delineator of PI-RADS category 4 and category 5 lesions in the absence of extraprostatic extension to predict CS cancers. Additionally, relative lesion diameter can improve identification of CS cancers and may serve as another option for distinguishing category 4 and 5 lesions.
MATERIALS: Three hundred and fifty-eight lesions that may be changed from category 4 to 5 or vice versa on the basis of the size criterion (category 4: n = 288, category 5: n = 70) from 255 patients were evaluated. Kendall's tau-b statistic accounting for inter-lesion correlation, generalized estimation equation logistic regression, and receiver operating curve analysis evaluated two lesion size-metrics (lesion diameter and relative lesion diameter-defined as lesion diameter/prostate volume) for ability to identify CS (Gleason grade ≥ 3 + 4) cancer at targeted biopsy. Optimal cut-points were identified using the Youden index. Analyses were performed for the whole prostate (WP) and zone-specific sub-cohorts of lesions in the peripheral and transition zones (PZ and TZ).
RESULTS: Lesion diameter showed a modest correlation with Gleason grade (WP: τB = 0.21, p < 0.0001; PZ: τB = 0.13, p = 0.02; TZ: τB = 0.32, p = 0.001), and association with CS cancer detection (WP: AUC = 0.63, PZ: AUC = 0.59, TZ: AUC = 0.74). Empirically derived thresholds (WP: 14 mm, PZ: 13 mm, TZ: 16 mm) performed similarly to the current ≥ 15 mm standard. Lesion relative lesion diameter improved identification of CS cancers compared to lesion diameter alone (WP: τB = 0.30, PZ: τB = 0.24, TZ: τB = 0.42, all p < 0.0001). AUC also improved for WP and PZ lesions (WP: AUC = 0.70, PZ: AUC = 0.68, and TZ: AUC = 0.74).
CONCLUSIONS: The current ≥ 15 mm diameter threshold is a reasonable delineator of PI-RADS category 4 and category 5 lesions in the absence of extraprostatic extension to predict CS cancers. Additionally, relative lesion diameter can improve identification of CS cancers and may serve as another option for distinguishing category 4 and 5 lesions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app