Matthew D Greer1, Joanna H Shih2, Tristan Barrett3, Sandra Bednarova4, Ismail Kabakus5, Yan Mee Law6, Haytham Shebel7, Maria J Merino8, Bradford J Wood9, Peter A Pinto10, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey1. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Biometric Research Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 3. University of Cambridge School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Cambridge, UK. 4. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical Area, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 5. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 7. Department of Radiology, Urology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. 8. Laboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 9. Center for Interventional Oncology, NCI and Radiology Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 10. Urologic Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADSv2) recommends a sector map for reporting findings of prostate cancer mulitparametric MRI (mpMRI). Anecdotally, radiologists may demonstrate inconsistent reproducibility with this map. PURPOSE: To evaluate interobserver agreement in defining prostate tumor location on mpMRI using the PI-RADSv2 sector map. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent mpMRI between October, 2013 and March, 2015 and who subsequently underwent prostatectomy with whole-mount processing. FIELD STRENGTH: 3T mpMRI with T2 W, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] and b-2000), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE). ASSESSMENT: Six radiologists (two high, two intermediate, and two low experience) from six institutions participated. Readers were blinded to lesion location and detected up to four lesions as per PI-RADSv2 guidelines. Readers marked the long-axis of lesions, saved screen-shots of each lesion, and then marked the lesion location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. Whole-mount prostatectomy specimens registered to the MRI served as ground truth. Index lesions were defined as the highest grade lesion or largest lesion if grades were equivalent. STATISTICAL TEST: Agreement was calculated for the exact, overlap, and proportion of agreement. RESULTS: Readers detected an average of 1.9 lesions per patient (range 1.6-2.3). 96.3% (335/348) of all lesions for all readers were scored PI-RADS ≥3. Readers defined a median of 2 (range 1-18) sectors per lesion. Agreement for detecting index lesions by screen shots was 83.7% (76.1%-89.9%) vs. 71.0% (63.1-78.3%) overlap agreement on the PI-RADS sector map (P < 0.001). Exact agreement for defining sectors of detected index lesions was only 21.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-27.7%) and rose to 49.0% (42.4-55.3%) when overlap was considered. Agreement on defining the same level of disease (ie, apex, mid, base) was 61.4% (95% CI 50.2-71.8%). DATA CONCLUSION: Readers are highly likely to detect the same index lesion on mpMRI, but exhibit poor reproducibility when attempting to define tumor location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. The poor agreement of the PI-RADSv2 sector map raises concerns its utility in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2018;48:482-490.
BACKGROUND: Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADSv2) recommends a sector map for reporting findings of prostate cancer mulitparametric MRI (mpMRI). Anecdotally, radiologists may demonstrate inconsistent reproducibility with this map. PURPOSE: To evaluate interobserver agreement in defining prostate tumor location on mpMRI using the PI-RADSv2 sector map. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent mpMRI between October, 2013 and March, 2015 and who subsequently underwent prostatectomy with whole-mount processing. FIELD STRENGTH: 3T mpMRI with T2 W, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] and b-2000), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE). ASSESSMENT: Six radiologists (two high, two intermediate, and two low experience) from six institutions participated. Readers were blinded to lesion location and detected up to four lesions as per PI-RADSv2 guidelines. Readers marked the long-axis of lesions, saved screen-shots of each lesion, and then marked the lesion location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. Whole-mount prostatectomy specimens registered to the MRI served as ground truth. Index lesions were defined as the highest grade lesion or largest lesion if grades were equivalent. STATISTICAL TEST: Agreement was calculated for the exact, overlap, and proportion of agreement. RESULTS: Readers detected an average of 1.9 lesions per patient (range 1.6-2.3). 96.3% (335/348) of all lesions for all readers were scored PI-RADS ≥3. Readers defined a median of 2 (range 1-18) sectors per lesion. Agreement for detecting index lesions by screen shots was 83.7% (76.1%-89.9%) vs. 71.0% (63.1-78.3%) overlap agreement on the PI-RADS sector map (P < 0.001). Exact agreement for defining sectors of detected index lesions was only 21.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-27.7%) and rose to 49.0% (42.4-55.3%) when overlap was considered. Agreement on defining the same level of disease (ie, apex, mid, base) was 61.4% (95% CI 50.2-71.8%). DATA CONCLUSION: Readers are highly likely to detect the same index lesion on mpMRI, but exhibit poor reproducibility when attempting to define tumor location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. The poor agreement of the PI-RADSv2 sector map raises concerns its utility in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2018;48:482-490.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Daniel Junker; Thomas R W Herrmann; Markus Bader; Jasmin Bektic; Gregor Henkel; Stephan Kruck; Markus Sandbichler; David Schilling; Georg Schäfer; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniel T Oberlin; David D Casalino; Frank H Miller; Richard S Matulewicz; Kent T Perry; Robert B Nadler; Shilajit Kundu; William J Catalona; Joshua J Meeks Journal: Urology Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Dirk Blondin; Michael Quentin; Andreas Hiester; Erhard Godehardt; Helmut E Gabbert; Nikolaus Becker; Gerald Antoch; Peter Albers; Lars Schimmöller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David R Holmes; Brian J Davis; Christopher C Goulet; Torrence M Wilson; Lance A Mynderse; Keith M Furutani; Jon J Camp; Richard A Robb Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stephanie M Walker; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Thomas Sanford; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas Sanford; Stephanie A Harmon; Evrim B Turkbey; Deepak Kesani; Sena Tuncer; Manuel Madariaga; Chris Yang; Jonathan Sackett; Sherif Mehralivand; Pingkun Yan; Sheng Xu; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.119