Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2.1 for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Indonesian Patients Undergoing MRI Fusion Prostate Biopsy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19166/med.v15i2.10777Keywords:
Diagnostic performance, MRI fusion prostate biopsy, PI-RADS v2.1, prostate cancerAbstract
Background:
Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy among men and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death. MRI evaluation using prostate imaging and data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 is widely applied to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, data on its diagnostic performance in Indonesian population remain limited.
Methods:
An analytical observational study with retrospective cross-sectional design was conducted on patients with PI-RADS category 3-5 who underwent MRI fusion prostate biopsy at Siloam Hospitals Kebon Jeruk between 2021 and 2025. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy of PI-RADS v2.1 were evaluated against histopathological findings. Statistical analyses include Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney U test.
Result:
A total of 75 patients were included, with a median age of 71 years (range: 49-84). The csPCa detection rates for each PI-RADS category were 14.29% for PI-RADS 3, 48.28% for PI-RADS 4 and 89.74% for PI-RADS 5. Histopathology confirmed csPCa in 50 patients (66.67%) and non-csPCa or benign lesions in 25 patients. The sensitivity of PI-RADS v2.1 at a cutoff ≥4 was 98% (95% CI 89.35–99.95), specificity 24% (95% CI 9.36–45.13), positive predictive value (PPV) 72.06%, negative predictive value (NPV) 85.71%, and overall accuracy 73.33% (95% CI 61.86–82.89). Bivariate analysis showed that older age, higher PSA, larger lesion size, PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml2, and PIRADS 4/5 category were significantly associated with csPCa.
Conclusions:
PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrates very high sensitivity and good NPV for excluding csPCa but has low specificity, resulting in moderate overall accuracy (73.33%).
References
1. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Laversanne M, Colombet M, Mery L, et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Cancer site ranking: Prostate [Internet]. Lyon, France; 2024 [cited 2025 Jun 11]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.who.int/today
2. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Laversanne M, Colombet M, Mery L, et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Country: Indonesia [Internet]. Lyon, France; 2024 [cited 2025 Jun 11]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.who.int/today
3. Bratt O, Auvinen A, Arnsrud Godtman R, Hellström M, Hugosson J, Lilja H, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps. Vol. 2, BMJ Oncology. BMJ Publishing Group; 2023.
4. Merriel SWD, Pocock L, Gilbert E, Creavin S, Walter FM, Spencer A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients. BMC Med. 2022 Dec 1;20(1).
5. John S, Cooper S, Breau RH, Flood TA, Cagiannos I, Lavallée LT, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment categories. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2018 Dec 1;12(12):401–6.
6. Hakozaki Y, Matsushima H, Murata T, Masuda T, Hirai Y, Oda M, et al. Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography-fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5. International Journal of Urology. 2019 Feb 1;26(2):217–22.
7. Osses DF, van Asten JJ, Kieft GJ, Tijsterman JD. Prostate cancer detection rates of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy related to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score. World J Urol. 2017 Feb 1;35(2):207–12.
8. Choomark S, Aussavavirojekul P, Woranisarakul V, Srinualnad S. Cancer Detection Rate of MRI Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy in 1,039 Patients and Number Needed to Biopsy in Targeted Lesion. Siriraj Med J. 2023;75(11):770–7.
9. Zhu K, Qin Z, Xue J, Miao C, Tian Y, Liu S, et al. Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with PSA ≥4 ng/mL: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(6):741–53.
10. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Vol. 76, European Urology. Elsevier B.V.; 2019. p. 340–51.
11. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan 1;69(1):16–40.
12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr 10;22(4):746–57.
13. Ullrich T, Schimmöller L. Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1. Abdominal Radiology. 2020 Dec 1;45(12):3961–8.
14. Beyer T, Schlemmer HP, Weber MA, Thierfelder KM. PI-RADS 2.1 - Image Interpretation: The Most Important Updates and Their Clinical Implications. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2021 Jul 1;193(7):787–95.
15. Sundaram AD. PI-RADS 2.1: A Practical Overview. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology. 2024 Sep;07(03):169–82.
16. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917–28.
17. Noureldin ME, Connor MJ, Boxall N, Miah S, Shah T, Walz J. Current techniques of prostate biopsy: An update from past to present. Vol. 9, Translational Andrology and Urology. AME Publishing Company; 2020. p. 1510–7.
18. Oerther B, Nedelcu A, Engel H, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, Brugger T, et al. Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2024 Aug 13;312(2).
19. 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 Dec 1;14(1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nyoman Aditya Sindunata, Vera Nevyta Tarigan, Patricia Jorisal, Bachtiar Murtala, Marto Sugiono, Veli Sungono
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website). The final published PDF should be used and bibliographic details that credit the publication in this journal should be included.
