Tiphaine Vaché1, Flavie Bratan, Florence Mège-Lechevallier, Sylvain Roche, Muriel Rabilloud, Olivier Rouvière. 1. From the Departments of Urinary and Vascular Radiology (T.V., F.B., O.R.) and Pathology (F.M.L.), Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, 5 place d'Arsonval, 69437 Lyon Cedex 03-France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France (F.B., O.R.); Inserm, U1032, LabTau, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, France (F.B., O.R.); Department of Biostatistics, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Equipe Biotatistique-Santé, Villeurbanne, France (S.R., M.R.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the subjective Likert score to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) and morphology-location-signal intensity (MLS) scores for categorization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifteen patients who underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate before radical prostatectomy were included in a prospective database after they signed the institutional review board-approved forms. Senior readers 1 and 2 prospectively noted the location, shape, and signal intensity of lesions on MR images from individual pulse sequences and scored each for likelihood of malignancy by using a Likert scale (range, 1-5). A junior reader (reader 3) retrospectively reviewed the database and did the same analysis. The MLS score (range, 1-13) was computed by using the readers' descriptions of the lesions. Then, the three readers again scored the lesions they described by using the PIRADS score (range, 3-15). MLS and PIRADS scores were compared with the Likert score by using their areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the Likert, MLS, and PIRADS scores were 0.81, 0.77 (P = .03), and 0.75 (P = .01) for reader 1; 0.88, 0.74 (P < .0001), and 0.76 (P < .0001) for reader 2; and 0.81, 0.78 (P = .23), and 0.75 (P = .01) for reader 3. For diagnosing cancers with Gleason scores greater than or equal to 7, the Likert score was significantly more accurate than the others, except for the MLS score for reader 3. Weighted κ values were 0.470-0.524, 0.405-0.430, and 0.378-0.441 for the Likert, MLS, and PIRADS scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Likert score allowed significantly more accurate categorization of prostate lesions on MR images than did the MLS and PIRADS scores.
PURPOSE: To compare the subjective Likert score to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) and morphology-location-signal intensity (MLS) scores for categorization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifteen patients who underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate before radical prostatectomy were included in a prospective database after they signed the institutional review board-approved forms. Senior readers 1 and 2 prospectively noted the location, shape, and signal intensity of lesions on MR images from individual pulse sequences and scored each for likelihood of malignancy by using a Likert scale (range, 1-5). A junior reader (reader 3) retrospectively reviewed the database and did the same analysis. The MLS score (range, 1-13) was computed by using the readers' descriptions of the lesions. Then, the three readers again scored the lesions they described by using the PIRADS score (range, 3-15). MLS and PIRADS scores were compared with the Likert score by using their areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the Likert, MLS, and PIRADS scores were 0.81, 0.77 (P = .03), and 0.75 (P = .01) for reader 1; 0.88, 0.74 (P < .0001), and 0.76 (P < .0001) for reader 2; and 0.81, 0.78 (P = .23), and 0.75 (P = .01) for reader 3. For diagnosing cancers with Gleason scores greater than or equal to 7, the Likert score was significantly more accurate than the others, except for the MLS score for reader 3. Weighted κ values were 0.470-0.524, 0.405-0.430, and 0.378-0.441 for the Likert, MLS, and PIRADS scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Likert score allowed significantly more accurate categorization of prostate lesions on MR images than did the MLS and PIRADS scores.
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: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Rajan T Gupta; Daniel J Margolis; Nathan Lay; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Daniel Lee; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Hebert A Vargas; Jonathan Coleman; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H A Vargas; A M Hötker; D A Goldman; C S Moskowitz; T Gondo; K Matsumoto; B Ehdaie; S Woo; S W Fine; V E Reuter; E Sala; H Hricak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105