Ancillary imaging and clinical features for the characterization of prostate lesions: A proposed approach to reduce false positives

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 53; no. 6; pp. 1887 - 1897
• Main Authors: Lee, Chul‐Min, Park, Kye Jin, Kim, Mi‐Hyun, Kim, Jeong Kon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-06-2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: ancillary features; Antigens; Evaluation; false‐positive; Image contrast; Image enhancement; Lesions; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mathematical analysis; Nodules; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System; Reduction; prostate; Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; ancillary features; false-positive
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27491

The relatively low specificity and positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) can lead to considerable false‐positive results and unnecessary biopsies. The aim of this study was to propose ancillary features (AFs) indicating clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) or benign tissues in PI‐RADS category ≥3 lesions and determine the usefulness of these AFs in reducing false‐positive assessments of suspicious lesions in men at csPCa risk. This was a retrospective study, which included 199 men. A 3T, including turbo spin echo T2‐weighted, echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) images, was used. Five AFs (prostate‐specific antigen density ≥0.15 ng/mL2; size ≥10 mm; heterogeneous T2 signal intensity; circumscribed nodule in the junction of peripheral and transition zone; and DCE time curves) indicating csPCa or non‐csPCa were evaluated by three independent readers. The sensitivity and specificity of each AF were calculated. Inter‐reader agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine significant AFs. The reduction in positive call rates and csPCa detection rates with combined AF use were calculated and compared with the findings obtained with PI‐RADS use alone. The sensitivities and specificities of the AFs indicating csPCa were 72.1%–96.5% and 27.4%–75.2% for reader 1, 66.3%–96.5% and 23.9%–62.0% for reader 2, and 67.4%–96.5% and 34.5%–78.8% for reader 3, with moderate to substantial inter‐reader agreement (Fleiss κ, 0.551–0.643). The combined use of two or more AFs for assessing PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions resulted in a 19.6%–30.7% reduction in positive calls (p < .05) compared to PI‐RADS use alone while preserving the csPCa detection rates (p ≥ .06) for three readers. The use of AFs in combination with PI‐RADS can reduce positive calls and false positives without csPCa under‐detection.