Performance of PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems in post focal therapy mpMRI surveillance

BACKGROUND: Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) and Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET) scoring systems have been recently developed to improve detection of post-ablation recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, it is unknown how these two scoring systems compare in clinical practice. METHODS: Patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and had post-FT MRI and biopsy were identified from a prospective registry. Post-FT MRIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to biopsy results using the PI-FAB and TARGET systems with scores of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively considered positive for csPCa. csPCa recurrence was defined as ≥ Gleason 3+4 (Grade Group [GG] 2) on biopsy. Diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV)/accuracy, were calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was generated using logistic regression and compared using DeLong's tests. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's Kappa (κ). RESULTS: 90 patients were eligible. Radiologist #1 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 67%/82%/54%/89%/78%/0.74, respectively; TARGET had values of 67%/79%/50%/88%/76%/0.73, respectively. Radiologist #2 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/0.65, respectively; TARGET 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/0.66. Logistic regression showed no difference in AUC for PI-FAB and TARGET (0.69; 95%CI 0.59-0.79 vs. 0.71; 95%CI 0.62-0.80, p = 0.696). Inter-reader agreement was fair for PI-FAB (k = 0.35, p = 0.02) and moderate for TARGET (k = 0.45, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems perform similarly in diagnostic performance, though inter-reader agreement is limited. Clinical parameters may be needed to fully assess csPCa recurrence after focal therapy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Urology and Nephrology
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-026-05467-9
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems in post focal therapy mpMRI surveillance

Aytekin Oto, Arieh L. Shalhav, Bora Kalaycıoğlu, Alejandro Calvillo-Ramirez et al.
5 links
International Urology and Nephrology
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Performance of PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems in post focal therapy mpMRI surveillance

Aytekin Oto, Arieh L. Shalhav, Bora Kalaycıoğlu, Alejandro Calvillo-Ramirez, Simon Han, J. Bradley Mason, Sang Mee Lee, Abhinav Sidana, Ahmed Hamimi, Jorge Arias, Haidy Megahed, Alex Weiss
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) and Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET) scoring systems have been recently developed to improve detection of post-ablation recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, it is unknown how these two scoring systems compare in clinical practice. METHODS: Patients who underwent focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and had post-FT MRI and biopsy were identified from a prospective registry. Post-FT MRIs were reviewed by two radiologists blinded to biopsy results using the PI-FAB and TARGET systems with scores of 3 and ≥ 4, respectively considered positive for csPCa. csPCa recurrence was defined as ≥ Gleason 3+4 (Grade Group [GG] 2) on biopsy. Diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity/specificity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV)/accuracy, were calculated. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was generated using logistic regression and compared using DeLong's tests. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's Kappa (κ). RESULTS: 90 patients were eligible. Radiologist #1 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 67%/82%/54%/89%/78%/0.74, respectively; TARGET had values of 67%/79%/50%/88%/76%/0.73, respectively. Radiologist #2 showed PI-FAB sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/accuracy/AUC of 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/0.65, respectively; TARGET 62%/68%/42%/83%/66%/0.66. Logistic regression showed no difference in AUC for PI-FAB and TARGET (0.69; 95%CI 0.59-0.79 vs. 0.71; 95%CI 0.62-0.80, p = 0.696). Inter-reader agreement was fair for PI-FAB (k = 0.35, p = 0.02) and moderate for TARGET (k = 0.45, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PI-FAB and TARGET scoring systems perform similarly in diagnostic performance, though inter-reader agreement is limited. Clinical parameters may be needed to fully assess csPCa recurrence after focal therapy.

International Urology and Nephrology
University of Chicago (US)
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon