KASMEJ
Kastamonu Medical Journal

Kastamonu Medical Journal regularly publishes internationally qualified issues in the field of Medicine in the light of up-to-date information.

ISSN: Passive
eISSN: 2757-9336
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Online Manuscript System

Index
Original Article
Comparison of prostate biopsy results with pı-rads categories, prostate volume and prostate specific antigen parameters
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to compare prostate biopsy results with PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) categories, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) parameters.
Methods: A total of 367 patients who underwent mpMRI between July 2021 and February 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Age, total PSA (tPSA), free PSA (fPSA), tPSA/fPSA ratio, PSA density (PSAD, tPSA/prostate volume), and PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) categories were recorded for each patient. 199 patients were excluded from the study due to insufficient data, and the study was conducted with the remaining 168 patients. The mpMRI examinations were performed using a 1.5 T MRI scanner. PI-RADS categories 1, 2, and 3 obtained from mpMRI were classified as benign, while PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were classified as malignant. Prostate biopsy was performed as a 12-core biopsy under transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guidance. Independent samples t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare the data of histopathologically benign and malignant groups. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Of the 168 patients included in the study, 105 (62.5%) were benign and 63 (37.5%) were malignant based on histopathological results. Statistically significant differences were found between malignant/benign groups in mean age (69.9/67.0 years, p=0.002), prostate volume (62.5/93.9 mL, p<0.001), fPSA/tPSA ratio (0.13/0.20, p=0.048), and PSAD (0.25/0.14 ng/mL2, p=0.003); while no significant differences were found in tPSA (13.9/11.5 ng/mL, p=0.419) and fPSA (1.63/1.68 ng/mL, p=0.922) values. A statistically significant difference was found between PI-RADS results of malignant/benign cases (p<0.001). Of the cases classified as malignant according to PI-RADS, 44 (26.2%) cases (18 prostatitis, 26 benign prostate tissue) were histopathologically benign, while 21 (12.5%) cases (8 high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, 13 malignant cases) classified as benign according to PI-RADS were histopathologically malignant. In the remaining 103 (61.3%) cases, PI-RADS and histopathology results were concordant.
Conclusion: According to our study, while tPSA and fPSA alone were insufficient in detecting prostate malignancy, fPSA/tPSA ratio and PSAD were found to be associated with malignancy. Discordance was detected between PI-RADS categories and histopathological results. The discrepancy between mpMRI and histopathological data may be attributed to the systematic 12-core blind biopsy procedure. MRI-guided biopsy might reduce the discordance between PI-RADS categories and histopathological results. In conclusion, the combined use of PSA parameters and mpMRI data will provide more accurate results in predicting prostate cancer.

Keywords : Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging, prostate carcinoma, prostate imaging-reporting and data system, prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography

Download Article


1. Soni BK, Verma P, Shah AK, Singh R, Sonawane S, Asopa RV. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detecting carcinoma prostate in patients with serum prostate-specific antigen between 4 and 20 ng/ml. Indian J Nucl Med. 2021;36(3):245-251. doi:10.4103/ijnm.ijnm_243_20
2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386. doi:10.1002/ijc.29210
3. &Ouml;nder &Ouml;, Ayva M, Yaraşır Y, et al. Long-term follow-up results of multiparametric prostate MRI and the prognostic value of PI-RADS: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2024; 30(3):139-151. doi:10.4274/dir.2023.232414
4. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(10):917-928. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
5. Tonkaz G, Senbil DC. Histopathological correlation of current prostate imaging reporting and data system scores with 3 Tesla multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in detecting prostate cancer. Curr Res MRI. 2022;1(1):10-14. doi:10.5152/CurrResMRI.2022.220510
6. Schr&ouml;der FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1320-1328. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
7. Şığva H, G&ouml;r&uuml;r S, G&ouml;kalp F, Tamka&ccedil; N, Porgalı SB, Yıldırak E. Correlation of multiparametric prostate MRI with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy histopathology. Bull Urooncology. 2024;23(2):50-55.
8. Zor M, Kaya E, Bedir S. Contribution of prostate-specific antigen density in the prediction of prostate cancer: does prostate volume matter? Gulhane Med J. 2018;60(1):14-18. doi:10.26657/gulhane.00010
9. &Ouml;zt&uuml;rk C, G&uuml;ng&ouml;r &Ouml;, Ersay H, Ramadan SU. Correlation between prostate-specific antigen density and findings from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of prostate. Cerrahpaşa Med J. 2022;46(3): 189-193. doi:10.5152/cjm.2022.22048
10. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243(1): 28-53. doi:10.1148/radiol.2431030580
11. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46-66. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091822
12. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AES, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
13. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
14. Dizon DS, Kamal AH. Cancer statistics 2024: all hands on deck. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):8-9. doi:10.3322/caac.21824
15. Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):402-414. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048
16. Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, Kim MH, Jeong IG. Risk stratification of prostate cancer according to PI-RADS&reg; version 2 categories: meta-analysis for prospective studies. J Urol. 2020;204(6):1141-1149. doi:10. 1097/JU.0000000000001306
17. Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, et al. Positive predictive value of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(5):697-713. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2020. 12.004
18. Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Radiology. 2020;296(1):76-84. doi:10.1148/radiol. 2020190646
19. De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, F&uuml;tterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343-351. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11046
20. Pellegrino F, Stabile A, Sorce G, et al. Added value of prostate-specific antigen density in selecting prostate biopsy candidates among men with elevated prostate-specific antigen and PI-RADS &ge;3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: a systematic assessment by PI-RADS score. Eur Urol Focus. 2024;10(4): 634-640. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.10.006
21. Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M, et al. Prostate volume index is able to differentiate between prostatic chronic inflammation and prostate cancer in patients with normal digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen values &lt;10 ng/ml: results of 564 biopsy naive cases. Urol Int. 2019;103(4):415-422. doi:10.1159/000502659
22. Ankerst DP, Till C, Boeck A, et al. The impact of prostate volume, number of biopsy cores and American Urological Association symptom score on the sensitivity of cancer detection using the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator. J Urol. 2013;190(1):70-76. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.108
23. Al-Azab R, Toi A, Lockwood G, Kulkarni GS, Fleshner N. Prostate volume is strongest predictor of cancer diagnosis at transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with prostate-specific antigen values between 2.0 and 9.0 ng/ml. Urology. 2007;69(1):103-107. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.041
24. Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, et al. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int. 2017;120(1):92-103. doi:10.1111/bju.13649
25. Bı&ccedil;aklıoğlu F, Aydın HR, G&uuml;&ccedil;taş A&Ouml;, Aksoy HZ. The predictive ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and free/total PSA ratio in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with histologically confirmed PCa with a PSA level of 2.5-10 ng/ml. Bull Urooncol. 2021;20(4):215-218. doi:10.4274/uob.galenos.2021.2021.9.4
26. Omar J, Jaafar Z, Abdullah MR. A pilot study on percent free prostate specific antigen as an additional tool in prostate cancer screening. Malays J Med Sci. 2009;16(1):44-47.
27. Basso D, Fogar P, Piva MG, et al. Total PSA, free PSA/total PSA ratio, and molecular PSA detection in prostate cancer: which is clinically effective and when? Urology. 2000;55(5):710-715. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00596-8
28. Wen J, Liu W, Shen X, Hu W. PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer among patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):6570. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-57337-y
29. Nguyen TA, Fourcade A, Zambon A, et al. Optimal PSA density threshold and predictive factors for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in patient with a PI-RADS 3 lesion on MRI. Urol Oncol. 2023;41(8):354.e11-354.e18. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.05.005
30. Wang F, Fu M, Tang Y, Li J. The value of adjusted PSAD in prostate cancer detection in the Chinese population. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1462997. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1462997
31. Aslanoğlu A, Saygın H, &Ouml;zt&uuml;rk A, et al. Correlation between PSA density and multiparametric prostate MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Bull Urooncology. 2024;23(1):29-35. doi:10.4274/uob.galenos.2023.2023. 6.2
32. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):724-730. doi:10.1111/bju.13619
33. Rico L, Contreras P, Vitagliano G, Pita HR, Ameri C, Blas L. Value of prostate-specific antigen density in negative or equivocal lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Turk J Urol. 2020;46(5): 367-372. doi:10.5152/tud.2020.20111
34. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. PRECISION study group collaborators MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 </ol> <p>
Article available in :
Volume 5, Issue 3, 2025
Page : 182-187
https://doi.org/10.51271/KMJ-0207
Article Information
Received : 14 Şub 2025
Accepted : 14 Nis 2025
Published : 03 Eyl 2025
Corresponding Author :

Mustafa Koyun: Department of Radiology, Kastamonu Training and Research Hospital, Kastamonu, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Koyun M, Taşkent İ, Ece B. Comparison of PI-RADS categories, prostate volume and prostate specific antigen parameters among prostate biopsy results. Kastamonu Med J. 2025;5(3):182-187.

Read: 294
Download : 661
Cited: 0
_Footer