BACKGROUND: Most studies assessing interreader agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADS v2) have used biopsy as the standard of reference, thus carrying the risk of not definitively noting all existent cancers. PURPOSE: To evaluate the interreader agreement in assessing prostate cancer (PCa) of PI-RADS v2, using whole-mount histology as the standard of reference. STUDY TYPE: Monocentric prospective cohort study. POPULATION: In all, 48 patients with biopsy-proven PCa referred for radical prostatectomy, undergoing staging multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) between May 2016 to February 2017. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T system using high-resolution T2 -weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (echo-planar imaging with maximum b-value 2000 sec/mm2 ), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (T1 -weighted high resolution isotropic volume examination; THRIVE) ASSESSMENT: Three radiologists blinded to final histology (2-8 years of experience) analyzed mpMRI images independently, scoring imaging findings in accordance with PI-RADS v2. On a per-lesion basis, we calculated overall and pairwise interreader agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories, as well as assessing malignancy with categories ≥3 or ≥4, and stage ≥pT3. STATISTICAL TESTS: Cohen's kappa analysis of agreement. RESULTS: On 71 lesions found on histology, there was moderate agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories to all cancers (k = 0.53) and clinically significant cancers (csPCa) (k = 0.47). Assessing csPCa with PI-RADS ≥4 cutoff provided higher agreement than PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff (k = 0.63 vs. 0.57). Interreader agreement was higher between more experienced readers, with the most experienced one achieving the highest cancer detection rate (0.73 for csPCa using category ≥4). There was substantial agreement in assessing stage ≥pT3 (k = 0.72). DATA CONCLUSION: We found moderate to substantial agreement in assigning the PI-RADS v2 categories and assessing the spectrum of cancers found on whole-mount histology, with category 4 as the most reproducible cutoff for csPCa. Readers' experience influenced interreader agreement and cancer detection rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:546-555.
BACKGROUND: Most studies assessing interreader agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADS v2) have used biopsy as the standard of reference, thus carrying the risk of not definitively noting all existent cancers. PURPOSE: To evaluate the interreader agreement in assessing prostate cancer (PCa) of PI-RADS v2, using whole-mount histology as the standard of reference. STUDY TYPE: Monocentric prospective cohort study. POPULATION: In all, 48 patients with biopsy-proven PCa referred for radical prostatectomy, undergoing staging multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) between May 2016 to February 2017. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T system using high-resolution T2 -weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (echo-planar imaging with maximum b-value 2000 sec/mm2 ), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (T1 -weighted high resolution isotropic volume examination; THRIVE) ASSESSMENT: Three radiologists blinded to final histology (2-8 years of experience) analyzed mpMRI images independently, scoring imaging findings in accordance with PI-RADS v2. On a per-lesion basis, we calculated overall and pairwise interreader agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories, as well as assessing malignancy with categories ≥3 or ≥4, and stage ≥pT3. STATISTICAL TESTS: Cohen's kappa analysis of agreement. RESULTS: On 71 lesions found on histology, there was moderate agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories to all cancers (k = 0.53) and clinically significant cancers (csPCa) (k = 0.47). Assessing csPCa with PI-RADS ≥4 cutoff provided higher agreement than PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff (k = 0.63 vs. 0.57). Interreader agreement was higher between more experienced readers, with the most experienced one achieving the highest cancer detection rate (0.73 for csPCa using category ≥4). There was substantial agreement in assessing stage ≥pT3 (k = 0.72). DATA CONCLUSION: We found moderate to substantial agreement in assigning the PI-RADS v2 categories and assessing the spectrum of cancers found on whole-mount histology, with category 4 as the most reproducible cutoff for csPCa. Readers' experience influenced interreader agreement and cancer detection rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:546-555.
Authors: Jie-Ying Kowa; Neil Soneji; S Aslam Sohaib; Erik Mayer; Stephen Hazell; Nicholas Butterfield; Joshua Shur; Derfel Ap Dafydd Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ronja Hietikko; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Anu Kenttämies; Johanna Ronkainen; Kirsty Ijäs; Kati Lind; Suvi Marjasuo; Juha Oksala; Outi Oksanen; Tuomas Saarinen; Ritja Savolainen; Kimmo Taari; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuomas Mirtti; Kari Natunen; Anssi Auvinen; Antti Rannikko Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Yongkai Liu; Haoxin Zheng; Zhengrong Liang; Qi Miao; Wayne G Brisbane; Leonard S Marks; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Guang Yang; Kyunghyun Sung Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Marcin Miszczyk; Justyna Rembak-Szynkiewicz; Łukasz Magrowski; Konrad Stawiski; Agnieszka Namysł-Kaletka; Aleksandra Napieralska; Małgorzata Kraszkiewicz; Grzegorz Woźniak; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Grzegorz Głowacki; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Paweł Rajwa; Wojciech Majewski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 6.639
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