Dataset Information

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v. 2.1 and v. 2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated.

Results

228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cut-off ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cut-off ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v. 2.1 was higher than with v. 2 (TZ, 0.826-0.907 vs 0.788-0.856; PZ, 0.857-0.919 vs 0.853-0.902).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v. 2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v. 2.

Advances in knowledge

PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

SUBMITTER: Urase Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8978254 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Urase Yasuyo Y Ueno Yoshiko Y Tamada Tsutomu T Sofue Keitaro K Takahashi Satoru S Hinata Nobuyuki N Harada Kenichi K Fujisawa Masato M Murakami Takamichi T

The British journal of radiology 20210708 1131

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2.<h4>Methods</h4>Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists ...[more]

PMID: 33882243

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement among radiologists in detecting and assessing prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2).Materials and methodsTreatment-naïve patients underwent 3-T multipara-metric MRI between April 2012 and June 2015. Among the 163 patients evaluated, 110 underwent prostatectomy after MRI and 53 had normal MRI findings and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy results. Nine radiologists participated (three each with high, intermediate, and low levels of experience). Readers interpreted images of 58 patients on average (range, 56-60) using PI-RADSv2. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth. Interob-server agreement was evaluated with the index of specific agreement for lesion detection and kappa and proportion of agreement for PI-RADS category assignment.ResultsThe radiologists detected 336 lesions. Sensitivity for index lesions was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.1-85.9%), comparable across reader experience (p = 0.392). Patient-level specificity was experience dependent; highly experienced readers had 84.0% specificity versus 55.2% for all others (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent for detecting index lesions (index of specific agreement, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.798-0.923). Agreement on PI-RADSv2 category assignment of index lesions was moderate (κ = 0.419; 95% CI, 0.238-0.595). For individual category assignments, proportion of agreement was slight for PI-RADS category 3 (0.208; 95% CI, 0.086-0.284) but substantial for PI-RADS category 4 (0.674; 95% CI, 0.540-0.776). However, proportion of agreement for T2-weighted PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone was 0.250 (95% CI, 0.108-0.372). Proportion of agreement for category assignment of index lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.728-0.903), on T2-weighted MR images was 0.515 (95% CI, 0.430-0623), and on DW images was 0.586 (95% CI, 0.495-0.682). Proportion of agreement for dominant lesion was excellent (0.828; 95% CI, 0.742-0.913).ConclusionRadiologists across experience levels had excellent agreement for detecting index lesions and moderate agreement for category assignment of lesions using PI-RADS. Future iterations of PI-RADS should clarify PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone.

Project description:ObjectiveAssess radiologists' contribution to variation in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).MethodsThis institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multidisciplinary prostate cancer program. Men undergoing mpMRI examinations from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with elevated PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and biopsy within 6 months pre- or post-MRI or prostatectomy within 6 months post-mpMRI were included. Univariate and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression assessed impact of patient, provider, mpMRI examination, mpMRI report, and pathology factors on the diagnosis of Grade Group ≥ 2 csPCa.ResultsStudy cohort included 960 MRIs in 928 men, mean age 64.0 years (SD ± 7.4), and 59.8% (555 of 928) had csPCa. Interpreting radiologist was not significant individually (P > .999) or combined with mpMRI ordering physician and physician performing biopsy or prostatectomy (P = .41). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, P = .04), PI-RADS category 4 (OR 2.52, P < .001), and PI-RADS category 5 (OR 4.99, P < .001) assessment compared with no focal lesion; PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.46, P < .001), 0.15 to 0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.77, P < .001), or ≥0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 4.52, P < .001); private insurance (reference = Medicare, OR 0.52, P = .001), and unambiguous extraprostatic extension on mpMRI (OR 2.94, P = .01) were independently associated with csPCa. PI-RADS 3 assessment (OR 1.18, P = .56), age (OR 0.99, P = .39), and African American race (OR 0.90, P = .75) were not.DiscussionAlthough there is known in-practice variation in radiologists' interpretation of mpMRI, in our multidisciplinary prostate cancer program we found no significant radiologist-attributable variation in csPCa detection.

Project description:BackgroundWith the widespread adoption of prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) screening, the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) have increased. Due to the low specificity and high false-positive rate of serum PSA levels, it was difficult to diagnose PCa accurately. To improve the diagnosis of PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa), we established novel models on the basis of the prostate health index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the Asian population.MethodsWe retrospectively collected the clinical indicators of patients with TPSA at 4-20 ng/ml. Furthermore, mpMRI was performed using a 3.0-T scanner and reported in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS). Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to construct the models. The performance of different models based on PSA derivatives, PHI derivatives, PI-RADS, and a combination of PHI derivatives and PI-RADS was evaluated.ResultsAmong the 128 patients, 47 (36.72%) patients were diagnosed with CSPCa and 81 (63.28%) patients were diagnosed with non-CSPCa. Of the 81 (63.28%) patients, 8 (6.25%) patients were diagnosed with Gleason Grade 1 PCa and 73 (57.03%) patients were diagnosed with non-PCa. In the analysis of the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves in TPSA 4-20 ng/ml, the multivariable model for PCa was significantly larger than that for the model based on the PI-RADS (p = 0.004) and that for the model based on the PHI derivatives (p = 0.031) in diagnostic accuracy. The multivariable model for CSPCa was significantly larger than that for the model based on the PI-RADS (p = 0.003) and was non-significantly larger than that for the model based on the PHI derivatives (p = 0.061) in diagnostic accuracy. For PCa in TPSA 4-20 ng/ml, a multivariable model achieved the optimal diagnostic value at four levels of predictive variables. For CSPCa in TPSA 4-20 ng/ml, the multivariable model achieved the optimal diagnostic value at a sensitivity close to 90% and 80%.ConclusionsThe models combining PHI derivatives and PI-RADS performed better in detecting PCa and CSPCa than the models based on either PHI or PI-RADS.

Dataset Information

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Advances in knowledge

Publications

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets