PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - FUKUI, YUDAI
AU  - YAMADA, YASUTAKA
AU  - SAKAMOTO, SHINICHI
AU  - HORIKOSHI, TAKURO
AU  - ZHAO, XUE
AU  - SATO, KODAI
AU  - NANBA, SAKIE
AU  - KUBOTA, YOSHIHIRO
AU  - KANESAKA, MANATO
AU  - FUJIMOTO, AYUMI
AU  - SHIBATA, HIROKI
AU  - GOTO, YUSUKE
AU  - SAZUKA, TOMOKAZU
AU  - IMAMURA, YUSUKE
AU  - UNO, TAKASHI
AU  - ICHIKAWA, TOMOHIKO
TI  - Preoperative PI-RADS v2.1 Scoring System Improves Risk Classification in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy
AID  - 10.21873/anticanres.16776
DP  - 2023 Dec 01
TA  - Anticancer Research
PG  - 5705--5712
VI  - 43
IP  - 12
4099  - http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/43/12/5705.short
4100  - http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/43/12/5705.full
SO  - Anticancer Res2023 Dec 01; 43
AB  - Background/Aim: The purpose of this study was to examine the prognostic value of Prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 scoring system in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and Methods: Clinical data of 294 patients who received RP between 2006 and 2018 were reviewed and multiple parameters including PI-RADS v2.1 score were employed to identify predictive factors for biochemical recurrence (BCR). Tumor volume was calculated from prostatectomy specimens. Results: Median age at operation and initial PSA level were 67 years old and 7.68 ng/ml, respectively. 44.9 and 24.8% of patients were diagnosed with PI-RADS score 4 and 5 prior to biopsies, respectively. BCR was observed in 17% of patients and median observation period was 63.43 months. After multivariate analysis, PI-RADS v2.1 score 5 [hazard ratio (HR)=2.24, p=0.0124] was an independent predictive factor of BCR in addition to clinical T stage (≥2c) (HR=2.32, p=0.0093) and biopsy Gleason score (≥8) (HR=2.81, p=0.0007). Furthermore, PI-RADS score 5 significantly stratified the prognosis in D’Amico intermediate- and high-risk groups (p=0.0174 and p=0.0013, respectively). We established novel risk classifications including PI-RADS v2.1 score and found that prognostic capabilities were improved as compared to the D’Amico classification. Conclusion: The PI-RADS v2.1 score exhibited significant prognostic value in patients with localized prostate cancer following RP. Risk classifications based on PI-RADS v2.1 score might provide better ability for predicting oncological outcomes as compared to the D’Amico classification system.