OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of a Likert scale in comparison with the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) criteria and tumor-pseudocapsule contact length (TCL) for the detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) at multiparametric MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all men who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by prostatectomy between November 2015 and July 2016. Multiparametric 3-T MRI studies with an endorectal coil were independently reviewed by five readers who assigned the likelihood of EPE using a 1-5 Likert score, ESUR criteria, and TCL (> 10 mm). EPE outcome (absent or present) for the index lesion at whole-mount histopathologic analysis was the standard of reference. Odds ratios (ORs) and areas under the ROC curve (Az) were used for diagnostic accuracy. The interreader agreement was determined using a weighted kappa coefficient. A p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty men met the eligibility criteria. At univariate analysis, the Likert score showed the strongest association (OR, 1.8) with EPE, followed by prostate-specific antigen level (OR, 1.7), ESUR score (OR, 1.6), and index lesion size (OR, 1.2). At multivariable analysis, higher Likert score (OR, 1.8) and prostate-specific antigen level (OR, 1.6-1.7) were independent predictors of EPE. The Az value for Likert scores was statistically significantly higher (0.79) than that for TCL (0.74; p < 0.01), but not statistically significantly higher than the value for ESUR scores (0.77; p = 0.17). Interreader agreement with Likert (κ = 0.52) and ESUR scores (κ = 0.55) was moderate and slightly superior to that for TCL (κ = 0.43). Except for TCL among inexperienced readers (κ = 0.34), reader experience did not affect interreader agreement. CONCLUSION: A Likert score conveying the degree of suspicion at multiparametric MRI is a stronger predictor of EPE than is either ESUR score or TCL and may facilitate informed decision making, patient counseling, and treatment planning.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of a Likert scale in comparison with the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) criteria and tumor-pseudocapsule contact length (TCL) for the detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) at multiparametric MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all men who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by prostatectomy between November 2015 and July 2016. Multiparametric 3-T MRI studies with an endorectal coil were independently reviewed by five readers who assigned the likelihood of EPE using a 1-5 Likert score, ESUR criteria, and TCL (> 10 mm). EPE outcome (absent or present) for the index lesion at whole-mount histopathologic analysis was the standard of reference. Odds ratios (ORs) and areas under the ROC curve (Az) were used for diagnostic accuracy. The interreader agreement was determined using a weighted kappa coefficient. A p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eighty men met the eligibility criteria. At univariate analysis, the Likert score showed the strongest association (OR, 1.8) with EPE, followed by prostate-specific antigen level (OR, 1.7), ESUR score (OR, 1.6), and index lesion size (OR, 1.2). At multivariable analysis, higher Likert score (OR, 1.8) and prostate-specific antigen level (OR, 1.6-1.7) were independent predictors of EPE. The Az value for Likert scores was statistically significantly higher (0.79) than that for TCL (0.74; p < 0.01), but not statistically significantly higher than the value for ESUR scores (0.77; p = 0.17). Interreader agreement with Likert (κ = 0.52) and ESUR scores (κ = 0.55) was moderate and slightly superior to that for TCL (κ = 0.43). Except for TCL among inexperienced readers (κ = 0.34), reader experience did not affect interreader agreement. CONCLUSION: A Likert score conveying the degree of suspicion at multiparametric MRI is a stronger predictor of EPE than is either ESUR score or TCL and may facilitate informed decision making, patient counseling, and treatment planning.
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-10-29
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie Harmon; Clayton Smith; Jonathan Bloom; Marcin Czarniecki; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Kareem Rayn; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marco Gatti; Riccardo Faletti; Francesco Gentile; Enrico Soncin; Giorgio Calleris; Alberto Fornari; Marco Oderda; Alessandro Serafini; Giulio Antonino Strazzarino; Elena Vissio; Laura Bergamasco; Stefano Cirillo; Mauro Giulio Papotti; Paolo Gontero; Paolo Fonio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Xifeng Zhang; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Stefan Hellinger; Anthony Yeung Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2020-01