Clayton P Smith1,2, Stephanie A Harmon3, Tristan Barrett4, Leonardo K Bittencourt5,6, Yan Mee Law7, Haytham Shebel8, Julie Y An9, Marcin Czarniecki1, Sherif Mehralivand1,10,11, Mehmet Coskun12, Bradford J Wood13, Peter A Pinto10, Joanna H Shih14, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey1. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA. 3. Clinical Monitoring Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. Department of Radiology, Fluminese Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 6. CDPI Clinics, DASA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 8. Department of Radiology, Urology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura City, Egypt. 9. Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio, USA. 10. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 11. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 12. Department of Radiology, Dr. Behcet Uz Child Disease and Pediatric Surgery Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ýzmir, Turkey. 13. Department of Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 14. Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2. PURPOSE: To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION/ SUBJECTS: In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI). ASSESSMENT: Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period. STATISTICAL TESTS: Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (Po ) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43-0.67, Po = 0.60-0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, Po = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and Po = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.
BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2. PURPOSE: To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION/ SUBJECTS: In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI). ASSESSMENT: Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period. STATISTICAL TESTS: Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (Po ) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43-0.67, Po = 0.60-0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, Po = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and Po = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Huiman X Barnhart; Eric Yow; Anna Lisa Crowley; Melissa A Daubert; Dawn Rabineau; Robert Bigelow; Michael Pencina; Pamela S Douglas Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: A Redondo; M Comas; F Macià; F Ferrer; C Murta-Nascimento; M T Maristany; E Molins; M Sala; X Castells Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
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: F H J Elsholtz; S-R Ro; S Shnayien; C Erxleben; H-C Bauknecht; J Lenk; L-A Schaafs; B Hamm; S M Niehues Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.092
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: 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
Authors: Nikhil J Dhinagar; William Speier; Karthik V Sarma; Alex Raman; Adam Kinnaird; Steven S Raman; Leonard S Marks; Corey W Arnold Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-12-29
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Luke P O’Conno; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Patrick T Gomella; Sandeep Gurram; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 7.450