Fast prostate MRI vs. conventional multiparametric prostate MRI: comparison and outcomes

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Abdominal Radiology Pub Date : 2025-04-07 DOI:10.1007/s00261-025-04918-8

Hamed Kordbacheh, Gorica Ristic, Elisabeth Heath, Seongho Kim, Kumayl Raza, Lance Heilbrun, Hussein D Aoun

{"title":"Fast prostate MRI vs. conventional multiparametric prostate MRI: comparison and outcomes","authors":"Hamed Kordbacheh, Gorica Ristic, Elisabeth Heath, Seongho Kim, Kumayl Raza, Lance Heilbrun, Hussein D Aoun","doi":"10.1007/s00261-025-04918-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the overall concordance of a fast prostate MRI (fpMRI) protocol versus conventional multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) protocol.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is an IRB approved retrospective review of 100 men between the ages of 50 and 80 who underwent mpMRI exams from January 2016 to May 2021. The mpMRI exams selected came from three categories: Group A (PI-RADS 1–2); Group B (PI-RADS 3); and Group C (PI-RADS 4–5). Two masked radiologists independently reviewed and assigned each fpMRI case the highest possible lesion PI-RADS score. The collected fpMRI scores were then compared to the mpMRI results, PSA values, and available targeted biopsy outcomes.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The concordance rates between the two fpMRI reviewers and mpMRI for the individually assessed groups (A, B, C) were 0.69 (95% CI,0.62 to 0.75). The PPV of groups B or C combined for GS <i>≥</i> 7 for mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 62% (40/64; 95% CI,0.50 to 0.74), 67% (40/60; 95% CI,0.53 to 0.78), and 72% (39/54; 95% CI,0.58 to 0.84), respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) of group B or C combined for GS ≥ 7 on mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 100% (3/3; 95% CI,29 to 100%), 100% (7/7; 95% CI,59 to 100%), and 92% (12/13; 95% CI,64 to 100%), respectively.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The concordance rates, PPV and NPV between the mpMRI and fpMRI results for groups B and C were moderately high, moderately high, and very high, respectively. This pilot study suggests that a larger prospective study might be beneficial to help establish fpMRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer.</p><h3>Graphical Abstract</h3><div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":"50 10","pages":"4835 - 4843"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-025-04918-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the overall concordance of a fast prostate MRI (fpMRI) protocol versus conventional multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) protocol.

Methods

This is an IRB approved retrospective review of 100 men between the ages of 50 and 80 who underwent mpMRI exams from January 2016 to May 2021. The mpMRI exams selected came from three categories: Group A (PI-RADS 1–2); Group B (PI-RADS 3); and Group C (PI-RADS 4–5). Two masked radiologists independently reviewed and assigned each fpMRI case the highest possible lesion PI-RADS score. The collected fpMRI scores were then compared to the mpMRI results, PSA values, and available targeted biopsy outcomes.

Results

The concordance rates between the two fpMRI reviewers and mpMRI for the individually assessed groups (A, B, C) were 0.69 (95% CI,0.62 to 0.75). The PPV of groups B or C combined for GS ≥ 7 for mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 62% (40/64; 95% CI,0.50 to 0.74), 67% (40/60; 95% CI,0.53 to 0.78), and 72% (39/54; 95% CI,0.58 to 0.84), respectively. The negative predictive value (NPV) of group B or C combined for GS ≥ 7 on mpMRI, R1 fpMRI, and R2 fpMRI was 100% (3/3; 95% CI,29 to 100%), 100% (7/7; 95% CI,59 to 100%), and 92% (12/13; 95% CI,64 to 100%), respectively.

Conclusions

The concordance rates, PPV and NPV between the mpMRI and fpMRI results for groups B and C were moderately high, moderately high, and very high, respectively. This pilot study suggests that a larger prospective study might be beneficial to help establish fpMRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer.

Graphical Abstract

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

快速前列腺MRI与常规多参数前列腺MRI：比较和结果。

目的：评估快速前列腺磁共振成像（fpMRI）方案与传统多参数前列腺磁共振成像（mpMRI）方案的总体一致性：这是一项经 IRB 批准的回顾性研究，研究对象为 2016 年 1 月至 2021 年 5 月期间接受 mpMRI 检查的 100 名年龄在 50 岁至 80 岁之间的男性。所选的 mpMRI 检查来自三个类别：A组（PI-RADS 1-2）；B组（PI-RADS 3）；C组（PI-RADS 4-5）。两名蒙面放射科医生独立审查每个 fpMRI 病例，并给每个病例尽可能高的病变 PI-RADS 评分。然后将收集到的 fpMRI 评分与 mpMRI 结果、PSA 值和现有的靶向活检结果进行比较：结果：两名 fpMRI 评审员和 mpMRI 对单独评估组（A、B、C）的一致率为 0.69（95% CI，0.62 至 0.75）。B 组或 C 组的 mpMRI、R1 fpMRI 和 R2 fpMRI 合并 GS ≥ 7 的 PPV 分别为 62% (40/64; 95% CI,0.50 to 0.74)、67% (40/60; 95% CI,0.53 to 0.78) 和 72% (39/54; 95% CI,0.58 to 0.84)。B组或C组对mpMRI、R1 fpMRI和R2 fpMRI上GS≥7的阴性预测值（NPV）分别为100%（3/3；95% CI，29至100%）、100%（7/7；95% CI，59至100%）和92%（12/13；95% CI，64至100%）：B组和C组的mpMRI和fpMRI结果的吻合率、PPV和NPV分别为中等偏上、中等偏上和非常高。这项试点研究表明，开展更大规模的前瞻性研究可能有助于将 fpMRI 确立为前列腺癌筛查工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

8.30%

发文量

334

期刊介绍： Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits