Anton S Becker1, Alexander Cornelius2, Cäcilia S Reiner3, Daniel Stocker3, Erika J Ulbrich3, Borna K Barth3, Ashkan Mortezavi4, Daniel Eberli4, Olivio F Donati3. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: anton.becker@usz.ch. 2. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001 Aarau, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: to simultaneously evaluate interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy in the of PI-RADS v2 and compare it to v1. METHODS: A total of 67 patients (median age 65.3 y, range 51.2-78.2 y; PSA 6.8μg/L, 0.2-33μg/L) undergoing MRI of the prostate and subsequent transperineal template biopsy within ≤6 months from MRI were included. Four readers from two institutions evaluated the likelihood of prostate cancer using PI-RADS v1 and v2 in two separate reading sessions ≥3 months apart. Interreader agreement was assessed for each pulse-sequence and for total PI-RADS scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences were considered significant for non-overlapping 95%-confidence intervals. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AZ). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for DCE-scores was good in v2 (ICC2=0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.74) and slightly lower in v1 (ICC1=0.64, 0.59-0.69). Agreement for DWI scores (ICC1=0.77, ICC2=0.76) as well as final PI-RADS scores per quadrant were nearly identical (ICC1=ICC2=0.71). Diagnostic accuracy showed no significant differences (p=0.09-0.93) between v1 and v2 in any of the readers (range: AZ=0.78-0.88). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores show similar interreader agreement in v2 and v1 at comparable diagnostic performance. The simplification of the DCE interpretation in v2 might slightly improve agreement while not negatively affecting diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: to simultaneously evaluate interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy in the of PI-RADS v2 and compare it to v1. METHODS: A total of 67 patients (median age 65.3 y, range 51.2-78.2 y; PSA 6.8μg/L, 0.2-33μg/L) undergoing MRI of the prostate and subsequent transperineal template biopsy within ≤6 months from MRI were included. Four readers from two institutions evaluated the likelihood of prostate cancer using PI-RADS v1 and v2 in two separate reading sessions ≥3 months apart. Interreader agreement was assessed for each pulse-sequence and for total PI-RADS scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences were considered significant for non-overlapping 95%-confidence intervals. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AZ). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Interreader agreement for DCE-scores was good in v2 (ICC2=0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.74) and slightly lower in v1 (ICC1=0.64, 0.59-0.69). Agreement for DWI scores (ICC1=0.77, ICC2=0.76) as well as final PI-RADS scores per quadrant were nearly identical (ICC1=ICC2=0.71). Diagnostic accuracy showed no significant differences (p=0.09-0.93) between v1 and v2 in any of the readers (range: AZ=0.78-0.88). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores show similar interreader agreement in v2 and v1 at comparable diagnostic performance. The simplification of the DCE interpretation in v2 might slightly improve agreement while not negatively affecting diagnostic performance.
Authors: Francesco Barletta; Elio Mazzone; Armando Stabile; Simone Scuderi; Giorgio Brembilla; Mario de Angelis; Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli; Vito Cucchiara; Giorgio Gandaglia; R Jeffrey Karnes; Morgan Roupret; Francesco De Cobelli; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Jiří Stejskal; Vanda Adamcová; Miroslav Záleský; Vojtěch Novák; Otakar Čapoun; Vojtěch Fiala; Olga Dolejšová; Hana Sedláčková; Štěpán Veselý; Roman Zachoval Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anton S Becker; Julian Kirchner; Thomas Sartoretti; Soleen Ghafoor; Sungmin Woo; Chong Hyun Suh; Joseph P Erinjeri; Hedvig Hricak; H Alberto Vargas Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Nathan Jenko; Daniel J A Connolly; Ashok Raghavan; James A Fernandes; Shungu Ushewokunze; Heather E Elphick; Paul Arundel; Utku Alhun; Amaka C Offiah Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-04-09
Authors: Daniël F Osses; Christian Arsov; Lars Schimmöller; Ivo G Schoots; Geert J L H van Leenders; Irene Esposito; Sebastiaan Remmers; Peter Albers; Monique J Roobol Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-12-10