Wei-Ching Lin1,2, Valdair F Muglia3, Gyl E B Silva4, Salomão Chodraui Filho3, Rodolfo B Reis5, Antonio C Westphalen6. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, China Medical University, Tai Chung City, Central Taiwan, Taiwan. 3. 3 Division of Radiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. 4 Department of Pathology, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. 5 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery and Anatomy, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. 6 Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, and Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracies and interreader agreements of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2 and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) multiparametric prostate MRI scale for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved retrospective study included 49 males who had 1.5 T endorectal MRI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists scored suspicious lesions on MRI using PI-RADS v. 2 and the UCSF scale. Percent agreement, 2 × 2 tables and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az) were used to assess and compare the individual and overall scores of these scales. Interreader agreements were estimated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: Reader 1 (R1) detected 78 lesions, and Reader 2 (R2) detected 80 lesions. Both identified 52 of 65 significant cancers. The Az for PI-RADS v. 2 and UCSF scale for R1 were 0.68 and 0.69 [T2 weighted imaging (T2WI)], 0.75 and 0.68 [diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)] and 0.64 and 0.72 (overall score), respectively, and were 0.72 and 0.75 (T2WI), 0.73 and 0.67 (DWI) and 0.66 and 0.75 (overall score) for R2. The dynamic contrast-enhanced percent agreements between scales were 100% (R1) and 95% (R2). PI-RADS v. 2 DWI of R1 performed better than UCSF DWI (Az = 0.75 vs Az = 0.68; p = 0.05); no other differences were found. The interreader agreements were higher for PI-RADS v. 2 (T2WI: 0.56 vs 0.42; DWI: 0.60 vs 0.46; overall: 0.61 vs 0.42). The UCSF approach to derive the overall PI-RADS v. 2 scores increased the Az for the identification of significant cancer (R1 to 0.76, p < 0.05; R2 to 0.71, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Although PI-RADS v. 2 DWI score may have a higher discriminatory performance than the UCSF scale counterpart to diagnose clinically significant cancer, the utilization of the UCSF scale weighing system for the integration of PI-RADS v. 2 individual parameter scores improved the accuracy its overall score. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PI-RADS v. 2 is moderately accurate for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the utilization of alternative approaches to derive the overall PI-RADS v. 2 score, including the one used by the UCSF system, may improve its diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracies and interreader agreements of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2 and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) multiparametric prostate MRI scale for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved retrospective study included 49 males who had 1.5 T endorectal MRI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists scored suspicious lesions on MRI using PI-RADS v. 2 and the UCSF scale. Percent agreement, 2 × 2 tables and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az) were used to assess and compare the individual and overall scores of these scales. Interreader agreements were estimated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: Reader 1 (R1) detected 78 lesions, and Reader 2 (R2) detected 80 lesions. Both identified 52 of 65 significant cancers. The Az for PI-RADS v. 2 and UCSF scale for R1 were 0.68 and 0.69 [T2 weighted imaging (T2WI)], 0.75 and 0.68 [diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)] and 0.64 and 0.72 (overall score), respectively, and were 0.72 and 0.75 (T2WI), 0.73 and 0.67 (DWI) and 0.66 and 0.75 (overall score) for R2. The dynamic contrast-enhanced percent agreements between scales were 100% (R1) and 95% (R2). PI-RADS v. 2 DWI of R1 performed better than UCSF DWI (Az = 0.75 vs Az = 0.68; p = 0.05); no other differences were found. The interreader agreements were higher for PI-RADS v. 2 (T2WI: 0.56 vs 0.42; DWI: 0.60 vs 0.46; overall: 0.61 vs 0.42). The UCSF approach to derive the overall PI-RADS v. 2 scores increased the Az for the identification of significant cancer (R1 to 0.76, p < 0.05; R2 to 0.71, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Although PI-RADS v. 2 DWI score may have a higher discriminatory performance than the UCSF scale counterpart to diagnose clinically significant cancer, the utilization of the UCSF scale weighing system for the integration of PI-RADS v. 2 individual parameter scores improved the accuracy its overall score. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PI-RADS v. 2 is moderately accurate for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the utilization of alternative approaches to derive the overall PI-RADS v. 2 score, including the one used by the UCSF system, may improve its diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Barry G Hansford; Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Michael W Vannier; Tatjana Antic; Stephen Thomas; Stephanie McCann; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Philip Rieker; Wilfried Roth; Michael Fenchel; Markus Hohenfellner; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Borna K Barth; Niels J Rupp; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Rainer Grobholz; Martin Schmidtpeter; Peter J Wild; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Borna K Barth; Katharina Martini; Stephan M Skawran; Florian A Schmid; Niels J Rupp; Laura Zuber; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-27