Berrend G Muller1, Joanna H Shih1, Sandeep Sankineni1, Jamie Marko1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Arvin Koruthu George1, Jean J M C H de la Rosette1, Maria J Merino1, Bradford J Wood1, Peter Pinto1, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey1. 1. From the Molecular Imaging Program (B.G.M., S.S., P.L.C., B.T.), Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (J.H.S.), Urologic Oncology Branch (S.R.B., A.G., P.P.), Laboratory of Pathology (M.J.M.), and Center for Interventional Oncology (B.J.W.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, MSC 1182, Bldg 10, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892-1088; Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (B.G.M., J.J.M.C.H.d.l.R.); and Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of The Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md (J.M.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate accuracy and interobserver variability with the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 for detection of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a biopsy-naïve patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients for use of their imaging and histopathologic data in future research studies. In 101 biopsy-naïve patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels who underwent multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate and subsequent transrectal ultrasonography (US)-MR imaging fusion-guided biopsy, suspicious lesions detected at multiparametric MR imaging were scored by five readers who were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly revised PI-RADS and the scoring system developed in-house. Interobserver agreement was evaluated by using κ statistics, and the correlation of pathologic results with each of the two scoring systems was evaluated by using the Kendall τ correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Specimens of 162 lesions in 94 patients were sampled by means of transrectal US-MR imaging fusion biopsy. Results for 87 (54%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer. Kendall τ values with the PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, at T2-weighted MR imaging in the peripheral zone were 0.51 and 0.17 and in the transitional zone, 0.45 and -0.11; at diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.42 and 0.28; at dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, 0.23 and 0.24, and overall suspicion scores were 0.42 and 0.49. Median κ scores among all possible pairs of readers for PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, for T2-weighted MR images in the peripheral zone were 0.47 and 0.15; transitional zone, 0.37 and 0.07; diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.41 and 0.57; dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 0.48 and 0.41; and overall suspicion scores, 0.46 and 0.55. CONCLUSION: Use of the revised PI-RADS provides moderately reproducible MR imaging scores for detection of clinically relevant disease.
PURPOSE: To evaluate accuracy and interobserver variability with the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 for detection of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a biopsy-naïve patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients for use of their imaging and histopathologic data in future research studies. In 101 biopsy-naïve patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels who underwent multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate and subsequent transrectal ultrasonography (US)-MR imaging fusion-guided biopsy, suspicious lesions detected at multiparametric MR imaging were scored by five readers who were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly revised PI-RADS and the scoring system developed in-house. Interobserver agreement was evaluated by using κ statistics, and the correlation of pathologic results with each of the two scoring systems was evaluated by using the Kendall τ correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Specimens of 162 lesions in 94 patients were sampled by means of transrectal US-MR imaging fusion biopsy. Results for 87 (54%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer. Kendall τ values with the PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, at T2-weighted MR imaging in the peripheral zone were 0.51 and 0.17 and in the transitional zone, 0.45 and -0.11; at diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.42 and 0.28; at dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, 0.23 and 0.24, and overall suspicion scores were 0.42 and 0.49. Median κ scores among all possible pairs of readers for PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, for T2-weighted MR images in the peripheral zone were 0.47 and 0.15; transitional zone, 0.37 and 0.07; diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.41 and 0.57; dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 0.48 and 0.41; and overall suspicion scores, 0.46 and 0.55. CONCLUSION: Use of the revised PI-RADS provides moderately reproducible MR imaging scores for detection of clinically relevant disease.
Authors: Daniel Portalez; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Vincent Misrai; Matthieu Thoulouzan; Bernard Malavaud Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Haresh Mani; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Yolanda L McKinney; Kiranpreet Khurana; Gregory C Ravizzini; Paul S Albert; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Baris Turkbey; Neil Glossop; Anurag K Singh; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford J Wood Journal: Comput Aided Surg Date: 2008-09
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Jennifer Ho; Anthony Hoang; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Harsh Agarwal; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana Kaushal; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail 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: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
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: 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: Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-11
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