PURPOSE: To compare the recently proposed Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale that incorporates fixed criteria and a standard Likert scale based on overall impression in prostate cancer localization using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seventy patients who underwent 3-T pelvic MR imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included. Three radiologists, each with 6 years of experience, independently scored 18 regions (12 peripheral zone [PZ], six transition zone [TZ]) using PI-RADS (range, scores 3-15) and Likert (range, scores 1-5) scales. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to compare scales for detection of tumors larger than 3 mm in maximal diameter at prostatectomy. RESULTS: Maximal accuracy was achieved with score thresholds of 8 and higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively. At these thresholds, in the PZ, similar accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223) and radiologist 3 (88.5% vs 88.2%, P = .739) and greater accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008). In the TZ, accuracy was lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001), radiologist 2 (87.6% vs 92.6%, P = .002), and radiologist 3 (82.9% vs 91.2%, P < .001). For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032), and sensitivity was similar for radiologist 2 (78.0% vs 76.5, P = .467) and radiologist 3 (77.3% vs 81.1%, P = .125). CONCLUSION: Radiologists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122233/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To compare the recently proposed Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale that incorporates fixed criteria and a standard Likert scale based on overall impression in prostate cancer localization using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seventy patients who underwent 3-T pelvic MR imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included. Three radiologists, each with 6 years of experience, independently scored 18 regions (12 peripheral zone [PZ], six transition zone [TZ]) using PI-RADS (range, scores 3-15) and Likert (range, scores 1-5) scales. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to compare scales for detection of tumors larger than 3 mm in maximal diameter at prostatectomy. RESULTS: Maximal accuracy was achieved with score thresholds of 8 and higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively. At these thresholds, in the PZ, similar accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223) and radiologist 3 (88.5% vs 88.2%, P = .739) and greater accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008). In the TZ, accuracy was lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001), radiologist 2 (87.6% vs 92.6%, P = .002), and radiologist 3 (82.9% vs 91.2%, P < .001). For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032), and sensitivity was similar for radiologist 2 (78.0% vs 76.5, P = .467) and radiologist 3 (77.3% vs 81.1%, P = .125). CONCLUSION: Radiologists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122233/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
Authors: Stephan H Polanec; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Peter Brader; Dietmar Georg; Shahrokh Shariat; Claudio Spick; Martin Susani; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kolja M Thierfelder; Michael K Scherr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jakob Weiß; Olaf Dietrich; Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Josef Pfeuffer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Theisen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Fainberg; Taehyoung Lee; James Eastham; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; Karim Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Daniel I Glazer; Ruth M Dunne; Fiona M Fennessy; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Clare M Tempany Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01