PDF icon Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2025; 11: a26828456
DOI: 10.1055/a-2682-8456
Original Article

Clinicopathological Characteristics of PIRADS 3 Prostate Lesion: A Retrospective Study

Bikash Bikram Thapa 
1   Department of Surgery, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Bina Basnet
2   Department of Radiology, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Gaurav Karki 
1   Department of Surgery, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Narayan Thapa
1   Department of Surgery, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available ateRef
  Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Introduction

Prostate carcinoma is the most common carcinoma in male. The evaluation of the suspected prostate carcinoma is based on the abnormal digital rectal examination, raised serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), followed by prostate biopsy with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) uses five-point scale (1–5), and is a global standard image acquisition, interpretation, and reporting protocol providing clinical guidelines for the management of the prostate carcinoma. PIRADS 3 is considered equivocal or intermediate risk for prostate carcinoma. The management of PIRADS 3 lesions without missing the clinically significant carcinoma and avoiding unnecessary biopsies has been a challenge to urologists. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics, and to find out the incidence of clinically significant prostate carcinoma (csPCa) in PIRADS 3 lesion.

Materials and Methods

It is a retrospective study where patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of prostate for PIRADS 3 lesion diagnosed in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) from October 2019 to December 2024 were reviewed and data collected for analysis.

Result

During the study period 19% (n = 34/178) had PIRADS 3 lesion. Patients with PIRADS 3 lesion had a mean age of 67 ± 8 years (mean ± standard deviation). About 41% (n = 14/34) of PIRADS 3 prostate lesion had acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate, and 20.5% (7 out of 34) had csPCa. All the csPCa cases had mpMRI lesion size of >10 mm and PSA density >0.2 ng/mL/cc.

Conclusion

There is a significant risk of prostate carcinoma (41%) among the PIRADS 3 prostate lesion. Further evaluation and management of the PIRADS 3 lesion should be based on risk stratification based on index lesion size and PSA density.

Keywords

prostate carcinoma - PIRADS - mpMRI of prostate - prostate specific antigen


Publication History

Received: 26 March 2025

Accepted: 13 August 2025

Article published online:
10 September 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

Bibliographical Record
Bikash Bikram Thapa, Bina Basnet, Gaurav Karki, Narayan Thapa. Clinicopathological Characteristics of PIRADS 3 Prostate Lesion: A Retrospective Study. Surg J (N Y) 2025; 11: a26828456.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2682-8456
 

  • References

  • 1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71 (03) 209-249
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Pakzad R, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A, Ghoncheh M, Pakzad I, Salehiniya H. The incidence and mortality of prostate cancer and its relationship with development in Asia. Prostate Int 2015; 3 (04) 135-140
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R. et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72 (02) 250-266
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lim CS, Abreu-Gomez J, Leblond MA. et al. When to biopsy Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) assessment category 3 lesions? Use of clinical and imaging variables to predict cancer diagnosis at targeted biopsy. Can Urol Assoc J 2021; 15 (04) 115-121
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Smith CP, Türkbey B. PI-RADS v2: current standing and future outlook. Turk J Urol 2018; 44 (03) 189-194
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16 (01) 9
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206 (06) 1179-1183
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 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 (03) 340-351
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Wadera A, Alabousi M, Pozdnyakov A. et al. Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2021; 94 (1118) 20191050
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7 (01) 70-82
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Yang S, Zhao W, Tan S. et al. Combining clinical and MRI data to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions and reduce excessive biopsy. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9 (03) 1252-1261
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Uroweb. Accessed June 1, 2025 at: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis/panel
  • 13 van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ. et al; ISUP Grading Workshop Panel Members. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44 (08) e87-e99
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 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
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Scott R, Misser SK, Cioni D, Neri E. PI-RADS v2.1: what has changed and how to report. SA J Radiol 2021; 25 (01) 2062
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Eberhardt SC. et al. Chronic prostatitis: MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging findings—initial observations. Radiology 2004; 231 (03) 717-724
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D. et al. Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280 (03) 793-804
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ. et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2—sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249 (03) 900-908
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA. et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016; 26 (06) 1606-1612
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Rahota RG, Diamand R, Malavaud B. et al. Pathological features of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 MRI lesions in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 2022; 129 (05) 621-626
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey B, Rastinehad AR. et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014; 20 (04) 293-298
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Scialpi M, Scialpi P, Martorana E. et al. Simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) for biparametric MRI to detect and manage prostate cancer: what urologists need to know. Turk J Urol 2021; 47 (03) 175-182
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM. et al. Identification of threshold prostate specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. J Urol 2014; 192 (06) 1642-1648
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH. et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017; 120 (04) 511-519
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: considerations for a prostate biopsy. J Urol 2023; 210 (01) 54-63
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Deniffel D, Perlis N, Ghai S. et al. Optimizing biopsy decisions in PI-RADS 3 lesions: cross-institutional validation of a local clinical risk model. World J Urol 2025; 43 (01) 253
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Wagaskar VG, Levy M, Ratnani P. et al. Clinical utility of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol Open Sci 2021; 28: 9-16
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Morote J, Campistol M, Triquell M. et al. Improving the early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men in the challenging Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 category. Eur Urol Open Sci 2022; 37: 38-44
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Belbase NP, Agrawal CS, Pokharel PK, Agrawal S, Lamsal M, Shakya VC. Prostate cancer screening in a healthy population cohort in eastern Nepal: an explanatory trial study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14 (05) 2835-2838
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Joshi R. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy and its complications: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2020; 58 (221) 44-47
    Search in Google Scholar