Literature DB >> 30807773

The Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation: Impact of the Individual Radiologist and Clinical Factors.

Nicholas A Pickersgill1, Joel M Vetter1, Neel S Raval1, Gerald L Andriole1, Anup S Shetty2, Joseph E Ippolito2, Eric H Kim3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare test performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detection of prostate cancer between individual radiologists using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and to identify clinical factors that may predict test performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined our database of consecutive men who received prostate mpMRI prior to biopsy between September 2014 and December 2016 (n = 459). Test performance (eg, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value) were defined with PI-RADS classification 4 or 5 considered test positive and Gleason score ≥7 on biopsy from any targeted core considered outcome positive. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify clinical variables that affect test performance.
RESULTS: No significant differences in test performance were found among individual radiologists. Prior biopsy (odds ratio [OR] 0.10, P = .01), radiologist experience >500 prostate mpMRI (OR 0.18, P = .04), transition zone location (OR 0.10, P = .04), and posterior location (OR 0.04, P = .03) were predictors of diminished sensitivity. Location of the mpMRI lesion in the TZ was a predictor of improved specificity (OR 2.53, P = .04). Increasing age (OR 1.07, P <.01) and prostate-specific antigen (OR 1.10, P <.01) predicted increased PPV, while prior biopsy predicted decreased PPV (OR 0.50, P <.01).
CONCLUSION: Although variation exists in test performance among individual radiologists using PI-RADS, significant differences were not observed. Additional prostate mpMRI experience was not beneficial in improving accuracy of interpretation. Nonmodifiable patient variables-including prostate lesion location, prior biopsy history, prostate-specific antigen, and age-are predictive of prostate mpMRI test performance.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30807773     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  5 in total

1.  Recommendations for additional imaging of abdominal imaging examinations: frequency, benefit, and cost.

Authors:  Sabine A Heinz; Thomas C Kwee; Derya Yakar
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Contemporary application of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: an i-TRUE study.

Authors:  B M Zeeshan Hameed; Milap Shah; Nithesh Naik; Sufyan Ibrahim; Bhaskar Somani; Patrick Rice; Naeem Soomro; Bhavan Prasad Rai
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2021-01-23

3.  Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters.

Authors:  Hyunseon C Kang; Nahyun Jo; Anas Saeed Bamashmos; Mona Ahmed; Jia Sun; John F Ward; Haesun Choi
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-03-23

4.  The learning curve in bladder MRI using VI-RADS assessment score during an interactive dedicated training program.

Authors:  Miguel Correia da Silva; Martina Pecoraro; Martina Lucia Pisciotti; Ailin Dehghanpour; Ali Forookhi; Sara Lucciola; Marco Bicchetti; Emanuele Messina; Carlo Catalano; Valeria Panebianco
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 7.034

5.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.