English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the second version of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) scores in predicting positive in-bore MRI-guided targeted prostate biopsy results across different non-university related institutions. The study focuses on PI-RADS v2 scoring because during the study period, PI-RADS v2.1 had not been released.  Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective review of 147 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the pelvis followed by in-bore MRI-guided targeted prostate biopsy from December 2014 to May 2018. All lesions on mpMRI were rated according to PI-RADS v2 criteria. PI-RADS v2 scores were then compared to MR-guided biopsy results and pre-biopsy PSA values.  Results: Prostate Cancer (PCa) was detected in 54% (80/147) of patients, with more prostate cancer being detected with each subsequent increase in PI-RADS scores. Specifically, biopsy results in patients with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions resulted in PCa in 25.6% (10/39), 58.1% (33/55), and 86.0% (37/43) respectively. Clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was detected in 17.9% (7/39), 52.7% (29/55), and 72% (31/43) of cases for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions respectively. When the PI-RADS scoring and biopsy results were compared across different institutions, there was no difference in the PI-RADS scoring of lesions or in the positive biopsy rates of the lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PI-RADS 3-4 lesions were also not statistically different across the institutions for detecting Gleason 7 or greater lesions. Conclusion: Our results agree with prior studies that higher PI-RADS scores are associated with the presence of clinically significant PCa and suggest prostate lesions with PI-RADS scores 3-5 have sufficient evidence to warrant targeted biopsy. The comparison of PI-RADS score across different types of non-university practices revealed no difference in scoring and biopsy outcome, suggesting that PI-RADS v2 can be easily applied outside of the university medical center setting. Clinical Relevance: PI-RADS v2 can be applied homogeneously in the non-university setting without significant difference in outcome.

Validation of PI-RADS v2 Scores at Various Non-University Radiology Practices