OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based Likert scoring system in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), using MRI/ultrasonography (US) image-fusion targeted biopsy (FTB) as a reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1218 MRI-detected lesions in 629 patients who underwent subsequent MRI/US FTB between October 2012 and August 2015. 3-Tesla MRI was independently reported by one of eight radiologists with varying levels of experience and scored on a five-point Likert scale. All lesions with Likert scores 1-5 were prospectively defined as targets for MRI/US FTB. CSPC was defined as Gleason score ≥7. RESULTS: The median patient age was 64 years, PSA level 6.97 ng/mL and estimated prostate volume 52.2 mL. Of 1218 lesions, 48% (n = 581) were rated as Likert 1-2, 35% (n = 428) were Likert 3 and 17% (n = 209) were Likert 4-5. For Likert scores 1-5, the overall cancer detection rates were 12%, 13%, 22%, 50% and 59%, respectively, and the CSPC detection rates were 4%, 4%, 12%, 33% and 48%, respectively. Grading using the five-point scale showed strong positive correlation with overall cancer detection rate (r = 0.949, P = 0.05) and CSPC detection rate (r = 0.944, P = 0.05). By comparison, in Likert 4-5 lesions, significant differences were noted in overall cancer detection rate (63% vs 35%; P = 0.001) and CSPC detection rate (47% vs 29%; P = 0.027) for the more experienced vs the less experienced radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rates of overall cancer and CSPC strongly correlated with the five-point grading of the Likert scale. Among radiologists with different levels of experience, there were significant differences in these cancer detection rates.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based Likert scoring system in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), using MRI/ultrasonography (US) image-fusion targeted biopsy (FTB) as a reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1218 MRI-detected lesions in 629 patients who underwent subsequent MRI/US FTB between October 2012 and August 2015. 3-Tesla MRI was independently reported by one of eight radiologists with varying levels of experience and scored on a five-point Likert scale. All lesions with Likert scores 1-5 were prospectively defined as targets for MRI/US FTB. CSPC was defined as Gleason score ≥7. RESULTS: The median patient age was 64 years, PSA level 6.97 ng/mL and estimated prostate volume 52.2 mL. Of 1218 lesions, 48% (n = 581) were rated as Likert 1-2, 35% (n = 428) were Likert 3 and 17% (n = 209) were Likert 4-5. For Likert scores 1-5, the overall cancer detection rates were 12%, 13%, 22%, 50% and 59%, respectively, and the CSPC detection rates were 4%, 4%, 12%, 33% and 48%, respectively. Grading using the five-point scale showed strong positive correlation with overall cancer detection rate (r = 0.949, P = 0.05) and CSPC detection rate (r = 0.944, P = 0.05). By comparison, in Likert 4-5 lesions, significant differences were noted in overall cancer detection rate (63% vs 35%; P = 0.001) and CSPC detection rate (47% vs 29%; P = 0.027) for the more experienced vs the less experienced radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rates of overall cancer and CSPC strongly correlated with the five-point grading of the Likert scale. Among radiologists with different levels of experience, there were significant differences in these cancer detection rates.
Authors: M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Neil Mendhiratta; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; James S Wysock; Marc A Bjurlin; Susan Marshall; Fang-Ming Deng; Ming Zhou; Jonathan Melamed; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sola Adeleke; Arash Latifoltojar; Harbir Sidhu; Myria Galazi; Taimur T Shah; Joey Clemente; Reena Davda; Heather Ann Payne; Manil D Chouhan; Maria Lioumi; Sue Chua; Alex Freeman; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Anthony Coolen; Sachin Vadgama; Steve Morris; Gary J Cook; Jamshed Bomanji; Manit Arya; Simon Chowdhury; Simon Wan; Athar Haroon; Tony Ng; Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Catherine Elizabeth Lovegrove; Mudit Matanhelia; Jagpal Randeva; David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Saiful Miah; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Taimur T Shah Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-09