Andrei S Purysko1, Leonardo K Bittencourt2, Jennifer A Bullen3, Thomaz R Mostardeiro4, Brian R Herts1, Eric A Klein5. 1. 1 Imaging Institute, Abdominal Imaging Section, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail Code JB-3, Cleveland, OH 44195. 2. 2 CDPI Clinic, DASA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. 3 Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 4. 4 Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 5. 5 Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy and interobserver agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2), for the characterization of prostate lesions on multiparametric MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 170 men examined at a single institution between August 2014 and February 2015 on a 3-T MRI scanner. Study patients were found to have lesions concerning for prostate cancer that were targeted for MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. Two experienced readers independently assigned a PI-RADSv2 assessment category to the dominant lesion in each patient. The AUC was calculated to determine reader accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). The Cohen kappa statistic was used to quantify interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.36 (61/170 patients). The AUCs for readers 1 and 2 were 0.871 and 0.882, respectively. The AUCs were greater for peripheral zone lesions than for transition zone lesions. When a PI-RADSv2 assessment category ≥ 3 was considered positive, the agreement between readers was good overall (κ = 0.63) and was fair for transition zone lesions (κ = 0.53). When a PI-RADSv2 assessment category ≥ 4 was considered positive, the agreement was excellent overall (κ = 0.91) and was excellent for both peripheral zone lesions (κ = 0.91) and transition zone lesions (κ = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Two experienced readers were able to accurately identify patients with clinically significant prostate cancer using PI-RADSv2 with good interobserver agreement overall.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy and interobserver agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2), for the characterization of prostate lesions on multiparametric MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 170 men examined at a single institution between August 2014 and February 2015 on a 3-T MRI scanner. Study patients were found to have lesions concerning for prostate cancer that were targeted for MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. Two experienced readers independently assigned a PI-RADSv2 assessment category to the dominant lesion in each patient. The AUC was calculated to determine reader accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). The Cohen kappa statistic was used to quantify interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.36 (61/170 patients). The AUCs for readers 1 and 2 were 0.871 and 0.882, respectively. The AUCs were greater for peripheral zone lesions than for transition zone lesions. When a PI-RADSv2 assessment category ≥ 3 was considered positive, the agreement between readers was good overall (κ = 0.63) and was fair for transition zone lesions (κ = 0.53). When a PI-RADSv2 assessment category ≥ 4 was considered positive, the agreement was excellent overall (κ = 0.91) and was excellent for both peripheral zone lesions (κ = 0.91) and transition zone lesions (κ = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Two experienced readers were able to accurately identify patients with clinically significant prostate cancer using PI-RADSv2 with good interobserver agreement overall.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS); multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Francesco Alessandrino; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Daniel I Glazer; Robert V Mulkern; Andriy Fedorov; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-05
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: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Brian P Calio; Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Alireza Ziaei; Francesco Alessandrino; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Mukesh Harisinghani; Mark Vangel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-04
Authors: Jie-Ying Kowa; Neil Soneji; S Aslam Sohaib; Erik Mayer; Stephen Hazell; Nicholas Butterfield; Joshua Shur; Derfel Ap Dafydd Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Nathan Lay; Stephanie A Harmon; Sreya Doddakashi; Sherif Mehralivand; Burak Argun; Tristan Barrett; Sandra Bednarova; Rossanno Girometti; Ercan Karaarslan; Ali Riza Kural; Aytekin Oto; Andrei S Purysko; Tatjana Antic; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Yesim Saglican; Stefano Sioletic; Anne Y Warren; Leonardo Bittencourt; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Daniel J Margolis; Haytham Shebel; Antonio C Westphalen; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers; Baris Turkbey Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-09-18