{"title":"PI-RADS v2.1 结合 ADC 值在前列腺癌格里森评分风险分层中的诊断价值分析:一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Wuhua Wang, Mingzhe Zhu, Zhijian Luo, Feng Li, Chenghao Wan, Long Zhu","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247708.125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prostate cancer is a remarkable global health concern, necessitating accurate risk stratification for optimal treatment and outcome prediction. By highlighting the potential of imaging-based approaches to improve risk assessment in prostate cancer, this research aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values to gain increased context within the broad landscape of clinical needs and advancements in prostate cancer management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of 145 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into low-moderate- and high-risk groups on the basis of Gleason scores. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assessed by senior radiologists and ADC values were calculated by using diffusion-weighted imaging. Statistical, univariate logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each index and combined PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study found significant differences in PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values between the low-moderate- and high-risk groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed associations of various clinical indicators, PI-RADS score and ADC values with Gleason risk classification. Amongst indices, mean ADC demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.912) and area under curve (AUC) value (0.962) and the combination of PI-RADS v2.1 with mean ADC showed high predictive value for the Gleason risk grading of prostate cancer with a high AUC value (0.966).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides valuable evidence for the potential utility of imaging-based approaches, specifically PI-RADS v2.1 combined with ADC values, in enhancing the accuracy of risk stratification in prostate cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"77 8","pages":"889-896"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Value Analysis of PI-RADS v2.1 Combined with ADC Values in the Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores: A Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Wuhua Wang, Mingzhe Zhu, Zhijian Luo, Feng Li, Chenghao Wan, Long Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247708.125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prostate cancer is a remarkable global health concern, necessitating accurate risk stratification for optimal treatment and outcome prediction. By highlighting the potential of imaging-based approaches to improve risk assessment in prostate cancer, this research aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values to gain increased context within the broad landscape of clinical needs and advancements in prostate cancer management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of 145 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into low-moderate- and high-risk groups on the basis of Gleason scores. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assessed by senior radiologists and ADC values were calculated by using diffusion-weighted imaging. Statistical, univariate logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each index and combined PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study found significant differences in PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values between the low-moderate- and high-risk groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed associations of various clinical indicators, PI-RADS score and ADC values with Gleason risk classification. Amongst indices, mean ADC demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.912) and area under curve (AUC) value (0.962) and the combination of PI-RADS v2.1 with mean ADC showed high predictive value for the Gleason risk grading of prostate cancer with a high AUC value (0.966).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides valuable evidence for the potential utility of imaging-based approaches, specifically PI-RADS v2.1 combined with ADC values, in enhancing the accuracy of risk stratification in prostate cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"volume\":\"77 8\",\"pages\":\"889-896\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247708.125\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20247708.125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic Value Analysis of PI-RADS v2.1 Combined with ADC Values in the Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores: A Retrospective Study.
Background: Prostate cancer is a remarkable global health concern, necessitating accurate risk stratification for optimal treatment and outcome prediction. By highlighting the potential of imaging-based approaches to improve risk assessment in prostate cancer, this research aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values to gain increased context within the broad landscape of clinical needs and advancements in prostate cancer management.
Methods: The clinical data of 145 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into low-moderate- and high-risk groups on the basis of Gleason scores. PI-RADS v2.1 scores were assessed by senior radiologists and ADC values were calculated by using diffusion-weighted imaging. Statistical, univariate logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each index and combined PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values.
Results: This study found significant differences in PI-RADS v2.1 scores and ADC values between the low-moderate- and high-risk groups (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed associations of various clinical indicators, PI-RADS score and ADC values with Gleason risk classification. Amongst indices, mean ADC demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.912) and area under curve (AUC) value (0.962) and the combination of PI-RADS v2.1 with mean ADC showed high predictive value for the Gleason risk grading of prostate cancer with a high AUC value (0.966).
Conclusions: This study provides valuable evidence for the potential utility of imaging-based approaches, specifically PI-RADS v2.1 combined with ADC values, in enhancing the accuracy of risk stratification in prostate cancer.
期刊介绍:
Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.