PURPOSE: To study the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by readers with different experience, comparing performance with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bmMRI) and with the reference multiparametric (mpMRI). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 68 patients with mpMRI of the prostate at 1.5 Tesla using a 32 phased-array coil. Forty-five patients (cases) underwent radical prostatectomy, whereas 23 (controls) had a negative prostate biopsy and ≥ 2.5 years of negative follow-up. Six observers (two with 1000 cases interpreted, two with 300, two with 100) performed the analysis first with bpMRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in three planes and, after 1 month, with mpMRI, adding dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). The performance was quantified by sensitivity (SNS), specificity (SPC) and area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) procedure. RESULTS: Concordance within observers of equivalent experience was good (weighted Cohen's k ≈ 0.7). The two expert readers performed as well in bpMRI as in mpMRI (SNS = 0.91-0.96, AUC = 0.86-0.93; p ≥ 0.10); readers with 300 cases performed well in mpMRI, but significantly worse in bpMR: SNS = 0.58 versus 0.91 (p < 0.0001) and AUC = 0.73 versus 0.86 (p = 0.01); the limited experience of readers with 100 cases showed in mpMRI (SNS = 0.71; AUC = 0.77) and even more in bpMRI (SNS = 0.50; AUC = 0.68). CONCLUSION: The study revealed the impact of the readers' experience when using bpMRI. The bpMRI without contrast media was a valid alternative for expert readers, whereas less experienced ones needed DCE to significantly boost SNS and AUC. Results indicate 700-800 cases as threshold for reliable interpretation with bpMRI.
PURPOSE: To study the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by readers with different experience, comparing performance with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bmMRI) and with the reference multiparametric (mpMRI). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 68 patients with mpMRI of the prostate at 1.5 Tesla using a 32 phased-array coil. Forty-five patients (cases) underwent radical prostatectomy, whereas 23 (controls) had a negative prostate biopsy and ≥ 2.5 years of negative follow-up. Six observers (two with 1000 cases interpreted, two with 300, two with 100) performed the analysis first with bpMRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in three planes and, after 1 month, with mpMRI, adding dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). The performance was quantified by sensitivity (SNS), specificity (SPC) and area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) procedure. RESULTS: Concordance within observers of equivalent experience was good (weighted Cohen's k ≈ 0.7). The two expert readers performed as well in bpMRI as in mpMRI (SNS = 0.91-0.96, AUC = 0.86-0.93; p ≥ 0.10); readers with 300 cases performed well in mpMRI, but significantly worse in bpMR: SNS = 0.58 versus 0.91 (p < 0.0001) and AUC = 0.73 versus 0.86 (p = 0.01); the limited experience of readers with 100 cases showed in mpMRI (SNS = 0.71; AUC = 0.77) and even more in bpMRI (SNS = 0.50; AUC = 0.68). CONCLUSION: The study revealed the impact of the readers' experience when using bpMRI. The bpMRI without contrast media was a valid alternative for expert readers, whereas less experienced ones needed DCE to significantly boost SNS and AUC. Results indicate 700-800 cases as threshold for reliable interpretation with bpMRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI); Diffusion-weighted imaging; Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE); Prostate cancer (PCa); Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2)
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
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