[Predictive effect of the dual-parametric MRI modified maximum diameter of the lesions with PI-RADS 4 and 5 on the clinically significant prostate cancer].

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rationality of the maximum lesion diameter of 15 mm in prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) as a criterion for upgrading a lesion from category 4 to 5 and improve it to enhance the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

In this study, the patients who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy at Peking University First Hospital from 2019 to 2022 as a development cohort, and the patients in 2023 as a validation cohort were reviewed. The localization and maximum diameter of the lesion were fully evaluated. The area under the curve (AUC) and the cut-off value of the maximum diameter of the lesion to predict the detection of csPCa were calculated from the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. Confounding factors were reduced by propensity score matching (PSM). Diagnostic efficacy was compared in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 589 patients in the development cohort, 358 (60.8%) lesions were located in the peripheral zone and 231 (39.2%) were located in the transition zone, and 496 (84.2%) patients detected csPCa. The median diameter of the lesions in the peripheral zone was smaller than that in the transition zone (14 mm . 19 mm, < 0.001). In the ROC analysis of the maximal diameter on the csPCa prediction, there was no statistically significant difference between the peri-pheral zone (AUC=0.709) and the transition zone (AUC=0.673, =0.585), and the cut-off values were calculated to be 11.5 mm for the peripheral zone and 16.5 mm for the migrating zone. By calcula-ting the Youden index for the cut-off values in the validation cohort, we found that the categorisation by lesion location led to better predictive results. Finally, the net reclassification index (NRI) was 0.170.

CONCLUSION

15 mm as a criterion for upgrading the PI-RADS score from 4 to 5 is reasonable but too general. The cut-off value for peripheral zone lesions is smaller than that in transitional zone. In the future consideration could be given to setting separate cut-off values for lesions in different locations.