Frank Chen1, Steven Cen2, Suzanne Palmer2. 1. Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1500 San Pablo St, 2nd Floor Imaging, Los Angeles, CA 90033. Electronic address: frank.chen@med.usc.edu. 2. Keck School of Medicine of USC, 1500 San Pablo St, 2nd Floor Imaging, Los Angeles, CA 90033.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate interobserver agreement with the use of and the positive predictive value (PPV) of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for the localization of intermediate- and high-grade prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, institutional review board-approved study, 131 consecutive patients who had mpMRI followed by transrectal ultrasound-MR imaging fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate were included. Two readers who were blinded to initial mpMRI reports, clinical data, and pathologic outcomes reviewed the MR images, identified all prostate lesions, and scored each lesion based on the PI-RADS v2. Interobserver agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and PPV was calculated for each PI-RADS category. RESULTS: PI-RADS v2 was found to have a moderate level of interobserver agreement between two readers of varying experience, with ICC of 0.74, 0.72, and 0.67 for all lesions, peripheral zone lesions, and transitional zone lesions, respectively. Despite only moderate interobserver agreement, the calculated PPV in the detection of intermediate- and high-grade prostate cancers for each PI-RADS category was very similar between the two readers, with approximate PPV of 0%, 12%, 64%, and 87% for PI-RADS categories 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, PI-RADS v2 has only moderate interobserver agreement, a similar finding in studies of the original PI-RADS and in initial studies of PI-RADS v2. Despite this, PI-RADS v2 appears to be a useful system to predict significant prostate cancer, with PI-RADS scores correlating well with the likelihood of intermediate- and high-grade cancers.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate interobserver agreement with the use of and the positive predictive value (PPV) of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for the localization of intermediate- and high-grade prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, institutional review board-approved study, 131 consecutive patients who had mpMRI followed by transrectal ultrasound-MR imaging fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate were included. Two readers who were blinded to initial mpMRI reports, clinical data, and pathologic outcomes reviewed the MR images, identified all prostate lesions, and scored each lesion based on the PI-RADS v2. Interobserver agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and PPV was calculated for each PI-RADS category. RESULTS: PI-RADS v2 was found to have a moderate level of interobserver agreement between two readers of varying experience, with ICC of 0.74, 0.72, and 0.67 for all lesions, peripheral zone lesions, and transitional zone lesions, respectively. Despite only moderate interobserver agreement, the calculated PPV in the detection of intermediate- and high-grade prostate cancers for each PI-RADS category was very similar between the two readers, with approximate PPV of 0%, 12%, 64%, and 87% for PI-RADS categories 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, PI-RADS v2 has only moderate interobserver agreement, a similar finding in studies of the original PI-RADS and in initial studies of PI-RADS v2. Despite this, PI-RADS v2 appears to be a useful system to predict significant prostate cancer, with PI-RADS scores correlating well with the likelihood of intermediate- and high-grade cancers.
Authors: Sung Il Jung; Hae Jeong Jeon; Hee Sun Park; Mi Hye Yu; Young Jun Kim; Seung Eun Lee; So Dug Lim Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jorge Abreu-Gomez; Daniel Walker; Tareq Alotaibi; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nikhil J Dhinagar; William Speier; Karthik V Sarma; Alex Raman; Adam Kinnaird; Steven S Raman; Leonard S Marks; Corey W Arnold Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-12-29