OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the interobserver agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for diagnosing prostate cancer using in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients underwent in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy between January 21, 2010, and August 21, 2013, and underwent diagnostic multiparametric MRI 6 months or less before biopsy. A single index lesion per patient was selected after retrospective review of MR images. Three fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists (with 1-11 years' experience) blinded to clinical information interpreted all studies according to PI-RADSv2. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-eight lesions were in the peripheral zone and 21 were in the transition zone. Cancer was diagnosed in 26 patients (44%). Overall PI-RADS scores were higher for all biopsy-positive lesions (mean ± SD, 3.9 ± 1.1) than for biopsy-negative lesions (3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.0001) and for clinically significant lesions (4.2 ± 1.0) than for clinically insignificant lesions (3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.0001). Overall suspicion score interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.45). There was moderate interobserver agreement among overall PI-RADS scores in the peripheral zone (κ = 0.46) and fair agreement in the transition zone (κ = 0.36). CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 scores were higher in the biopsy-positive group. PI-RADSv2 showed moderate interobserver agreement among abdominal radiologists with no prior experience using the scoring system.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the interobserver agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for diagnosing prostate cancer using in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients underwent in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy between January 21, 2010, and August 21, 2013, and underwent diagnostic multiparametric MRI 6 months or less before biopsy. A single index lesion per patient was selected after retrospective review of MR images. Three fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists (with 1-11 years' experience) blinded to clinical information interpreted all studies according to PI-RADSv2. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-eight lesions were in the peripheral zone and 21 were in the transition zone. Cancer was diagnosed in 26 patients (44%). Overall PI-RADS scores were higher for all biopsy-positive lesions (mean ± SD, 3.9 ± 1.1) than for biopsy-negative lesions (3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.0001) and for clinically significant lesions (4.2 ± 1.0) than for clinically insignificant lesions (3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.0001). Overall suspicion score interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.45). There was moderate interobserver agreement among overall PI-RADS scores in the peripheral zone (κ = 0.46) and fair agreement in the transition zone (κ = 0.36). CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 scores were higher in the biopsy-positive group. PI-RADSv2 showed moderate interobserver agreement among abdominal radiologists with no prior experience using the scoring system.
Entities:
Keywords:
PI-RADS; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Fiona M Fennessy; Junichi Tokuda; Nobuhiko Hata; William M Wells; Ron Kikinis; Clare M Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 4.813
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: W J Catalona; A W Partin; K M Slawin; M K Brawer; R C Flanigan; A Patel; J P Richie; J B deKernion; P C Walsh; P T Scardino; P H Lange; E N Subong; R E Parson; G H Gasior; K G Loveland; P C Southwick Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-05-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Michelle Bardis; Roozbeh Houshyar; Chanon Chantaduly; Karen Tran-Harding; Alexander Ushinsky; Chantal Chahine; Mark Rupasinghe; Daniel Chow; Peter Chang Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-05
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: Ran Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Jung Jae Park; Jae Hun Kim; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Hyun Moo Lee Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Yin Lei; Tian Jie Li; Peng Gu; Yu Kun Yang; Lei Zhao; Chao Gao; Juan Hu; Xiao Dong Liu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 5.738
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