Yassir Edrees Almalki, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha, Susan Adil Ali, Ragab Hani Donkol, Maged Abdel Galil Hamed, Maha Ibrahim Metwally, Rania Mostafa A Hassan, Reem Abdel Fattah Frere, Amro Ahmed Esmat Abdul Rahman, Yasmin Ibrahim Libda, Nader E M Mahmoud, Mohamed Hesham Saleh Saleh Radwan, Ibrahim M Eladl, Amgad M Elsheikh, Mohamed M A Zaitoun, Al-Shaimaa Mohamed Mohamed, Ghada Adel AbdelHamid, Heba Fathy Tantawy, Shimaa Elsayed Badr, Walid Mosallam, Mohammad Al-Shatouri, Waleed S Abo Shanab, Tamer Mahmoud Dawoud, Hamada M Khater, Rasha Taha Abouelkheir, Heba Abdelhamed, Ahmed Ali Obaya, Basant Sh Elshafaay, Ahmed M Abdelkhalik Basha, Reem M Abdelkhalik Mohammad, Noha Yahia Ebaid
下载PDF
{"title":"前列腺特异性膜抗原报告和数据系统1.0版与2.0版在前列腺癌评估中的比较。","authors":"Yassir Edrees Almalki, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha, Susan Adil Ali, Ragab Hani Donkol, Maged Abdel Galil Hamed, Maha Ibrahim Metwally, Rania Mostafa A Hassan, Reem Abdel Fattah Frere, Amro Ahmed Esmat Abdul Rahman, Yasmin Ibrahim Libda, Nader E M Mahmoud, Mohamed Hesham Saleh Saleh Radwan, Ibrahim M Eladl, Amgad M Elsheikh, Mohamed M A Zaitoun, Al-Shaimaa Mohamed Mohamed, Ghada Adel AbdelHamid, Heba Fathy Tantawy, Shimaa Elsayed Badr, Walid Mosallam, Mohammad Al-Shatouri, Waleed S Abo Shanab, Tamer Mahmoud Dawoud, Hamada M Khater, Rasha Taha Abouelkheir, Heba Abdelhamed, Ahmed Ali Obaya, Basant Sh Elshafaay, Ahmed M Abdelkhalik Basha, Reem M Abdelkhalik Mohammad, Noha Yahia Ebaid","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To assess diagnostic performance and reliability of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Reporting and Data System (PSMA-RADS) version 1.0 in evaluating prostate cancer (PCa) and compare it with the updated version (version 2.0). Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter study was conducted between June 2022 and August 2024. Participants with PCa underwent gallium 68 (<sup>68</sup>Ga) PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging and were divided into three groups: new diagnoses, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and follow-up. Three nuclear medicine radiologists independently interpreted the images using PSMA-RADS version 1.0, followed by a retrospective assessment using PSMA-RADS version 2.0. Diagnostic performance was calculated using linear mixed-model analysis. Histopathology and follow-up data served as reference standards. Interrater agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The study included 443 male participants (mean age, 68.6 years ± 8.1 [SD]) divided into new diagnoses (<i>n</i> = 164), BCR (<i>n</i> = 108), and follow-up (<i>n</i> = 171) groups. Compared with PSMA-RADS version 1.0, version 2.0 improved diagnostic accuracy in new diagnoses (95.9% vs 97.4%, <i>P</i> = .02), BCR (92.6% vs 95.7%, <i>P</i> = .004), and follow-up (88.7% vs 94.7%, <i>P</i> < .001). Sensitivity substantially improved in follow-up cases (87.7% vs 95.7%, <i>P</i> < .001). Interrater agreement was comparable between two versions, with lowest reliability in soft tissue evaluation (ICC = 0.36-0.50). Introduction of the PSMA-RADS 5T category to version 2.0 enhanced the characterization of treated metastases, improving correlation with prostate-specific antigen dynamics (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.74 vs 0.61, <i>P</i> < .001) and the discrimination of treatment response (88.7% vs 82.3%, <i>P</i> = .02). Conclusion Both PSMA-RADS versions 1.0 and 2.0 were highly accurate and reliable for PCa imaging, with version 2.0 offering significant improvements, particularly in challenging follow-up and BCR cases. <b>Keywords:</b> PET/CT, Urinary, Prostate, Neoplasms-Primary, Oncology, Comparative Studies, Prostate Cancer, PSMA-RADS, Diagnostic Performance, Reliability Clinical trial registration no.: NCT06359717 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2025.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 3","pages":"e240390"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130719/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Reporting and Data System Version 1.0 versus 2.0 for Prostate Cancer Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Yassir Edrees Almalki, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha, Susan Adil Ali, Ragab Hani Donkol, Maged Abdel Galil Hamed, Maha Ibrahim Metwally, Rania Mostafa A Hassan, Reem Abdel Fattah Frere, Amro Ahmed Esmat Abdul Rahman, Yasmin Ibrahim Libda, Nader E M Mahmoud, Mohamed Hesham Saleh Saleh Radwan, Ibrahim M Eladl, Amgad M Elsheikh, Mohamed M A Zaitoun, Al-Shaimaa Mohamed Mohamed, Ghada Adel AbdelHamid, Heba Fathy Tantawy, Shimaa Elsayed Badr, Walid Mosallam, Mohammad Al-Shatouri, Waleed S Abo Shanab, Tamer Mahmoud Dawoud, Hamada M Khater, Rasha Taha Abouelkheir, Heba Abdelhamed, Ahmed Ali Obaya, Basant Sh Elshafaay, Ahmed M Abdelkhalik Basha, Reem M Abdelkhalik Mohammad, Noha Yahia Ebaid\",\"doi\":\"10.1148/rycan.240390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Purpose To assess diagnostic performance and reliability of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Reporting and Data System (PSMA-RADS) version 1.0 in evaluating prostate cancer (PCa) and compare it with the updated version (version 2.0). Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter study was conducted between June 2022 and August 2024. Participants with PCa underwent gallium 68 (<sup>68</sup>Ga) PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging and were divided into three groups: new diagnoses, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and follow-up. Three nuclear medicine radiologists independently interpreted the images using PSMA-RADS version 1.0, followed by a retrospective assessment using PSMA-RADS version 2.0. Diagnostic performance was calculated using linear mixed-model analysis. Histopathology and follow-up data served as reference standards. Interrater agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The study included 443 male participants (mean age, 68.6 years ± 8.1 [SD]) divided into new diagnoses (<i>n</i> = 164), BCR (<i>n</i> = 108), and follow-up (<i>n</i> = 171) groups. Compared with PSMA-RADS version 1.0, version 2.0 improved diagnostic accuracy in new diagnoses (95.9% vs 97.4%, <i>P</i> = .02), BCR (92.6% vs 95.7%, <i>P</i> = .004), and follow-up (88.7% vs 94.7%, <i>P</i> < .001). Sensitivity substantially improved in follow-up cases (87.7% vs 95.7%, <i>P</i> < .001). Interrater agreement was comparable between two versions, with lowest reliability in soft tissue evaluation (ICC = 0.36-0.50). Introduction of the PSMA-RADS 5T category to version 2.0 enhanced the characterization of treated metastases, improving correlation with prostate-specific antigen dynamics (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.74 vs 0.61, <i>P</i> < .001) and the discrimination of treatment response (88.7% vs 82.3%, <i>P</i> = .02). Conclusion Both PSMA-RADS versions 1.0 and 2.0 were highly accurate and reliable for PCa imaging, with version 2.0 offering significant improvements, particularly in challenging follow-up and BCR cases. <b>Keywords:</b> PET/CT, Urinary, Prostate, Neoplasms-Primary, Oncology, Comparative Studies, Prostate Cancer, PSMA-RADS, Diagnostic Performance, Reliability Clinical trial registration no.: NCT06359717 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2025.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology. Imaging cancer\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"e240390\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130719/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology. Imaging cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
