[Correlation analysis between prostate imaging report and data system score and pathological results of prostate cancer].

Objective: To explore the correlation between prostate imaging report and data system (PI-RADS) score and international society of uological pathology (ISUP) grade of prostate cancer (PCa) and the role of PI-RADS score in predicting the pathological features of clinically significant PCa (csPCa), positive surgical margin and pathological upgrade. Methods: The pathologically positive patients with multi-parameter magnetic resonance image (mpMRI) were included in this study. The patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA)<100 μg/L were divided into two groups: biopsy group ( n= 523) and RP group ( n= 215). The correlation between PI-RADS score and ISUP grade and the accuracy of predicting csPCa in the two groups were evaluated. In the RP group, the correlation between PI-RADS score and postoperative pathological grade or degradation and positive incisal margin was further discussed. The patients with PSA≥100 μg/L (171cases in biopsy group and 6 cases in RP group) were not included in the statistical analysis, and the results were simply described. Results: The age, prostate volume, and PSA level of biopsy group and RP group was (72±8) years vs (68±7) years, 48.3 (32-57) cm(3) vs 47.2 (32-54) cm(3), and 26.3(10.2-34.2)μg/L vs 21.7 (9.24-23.95)μg/L, respectively. The PI-RADS scores ≤ 3,4, and 5 in the biopsy group were 109,97, and 317 respectively, and those in the RP group were 61,55, and 99 respectively. There were significant differences in the composition of ISUP grades of different PI-RADS scores between the two groups ( P< 0.001), and there was a positive correlation between the two groups ( r= 0.493 in the biopsy group, r= 0.671 in the RP group, both P< 0.001). Using PI-RADS score to predict csPCa, biopsy group (AUC=0.764, P< 0.001, 95 %CI :0.710-0.819) and RP group (AUC=0.807, P< 0.001, 95 %CI :0.735-0.879) had certain accuracy. The PI-RADS score combined with PSA could improve the accuracy of csPCa prediction in the biopsy group (AUC=0.795, P< 0.001, 95 % CI: 0.746-0.843) and the RP group (AUC=0.852, P< 0.001, 95 %CI :0.789-0.915). Compared with the pathological results of biopsy in the RP group, 52.6% of the patients showed upgrade and degrade of ISUP, and there was insignificant difference in the composition of PI-RADS scores between upgraded and degraded patients ( P> 0.05). However, 41.7%(27/65) of the patients with ISUP grade 1 biopsies had pathological upgrades that the patients with PI-RADS ≤ 3 accounted for 33.3%, while the patients with PI-RADS>3 accounted for 66.7%, and there was significant difference between the two groups ( P< 0.05). After RP, 43.3% of the patients had positive surgical margins, and the patients with PI-RADS score ≤ 3, 4 and 5 were 13 (14%), 24 (25.8%) and 56 (60.2%), respectively, while the PI-RADS scores of patients with negative surgical margin were 48 (39.3%), 31(25.4%) and 43(35.2%), respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups ( P< 0.001). The higher the PI-RADS score, the greater the possibility of the positive surgical margin. For the patients with PSA ≥ 100 μg/L, 98.8% (169/171) patients in the biopsy group had a PI-RADS score 5. The pathological results of all patients were csPCa, of which 85.4% (146/171) had ISUP grade ≥ 4. Among them, 6 cases underwent RP, 5 cases had ISUP grade ≥ 4, all surgical margin were positive, 5 cases had seminal vesicle invasion, 3 cases had capsule invasion and 3 cases had positive pelvic lymph nodes. Conclusion: ThePI-RADS score is correlated with the ISUP grade of PCa. Combined with PSA can accurately predict csPCa. At the same time, the higher PI-RADS score, the more likely the patients with positive incisal margin after RP and Gleason score of 3+3=6 at the time of puncture will be upgraded pathologically.