OBJECTIVES: To evaluate accuracy and inter-observer variability using Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) for discrimination between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: Between September 2017 and July 2018, 78 patients referred for suspected bladder cancer underwent multiparametric MRI of the bladder (mpMRI) prior to transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). All mpMRI were reviewed by two radiologists, who scored each lesion according to VI-RADS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each VI-RADS cutoff. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to evaluate the performance of mpMRI. The Ƙ statistics was used to estimate inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in the final analysis, 53 with NMIBC and 22 with MIBC. Sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 89% for reader 1 and 82% and 85% for reader 2 respectively when the cutoff VI-RADS > 2 was used to define MIBC. At the same cutoff, PPV and NPV were 77% and 96% for reader 1 and 69% and 92% for reader 2. When the cutoff VI-RADS > 3 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 94% for reader 1 and 77% and 89% for reader 2. Corresponding PPV and NPV were 86% and 93% for reader 1 and 74% and 91% for reader 2. Area under curve was 0.926 and 0.873 for reader 1 and 2 respectively. Inter-reader agreement was good for the overall score (Ƙ = 0.731). CONCLUSIONS: VI-RADS is accurate in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC. Inter-reader agreement is overall good. KEY POINTS: • Traditionally, the local staging of bladder cancer relies on transurethral resection of bladder tumor. • However, transurethral resection of bladder tumor carries a significant risk of understaging a cancer; therefore, more accurate, faster, and non-invasive staging techniques are needed to improve outcomes. • Multiparametric MRI has proved to be the best imaging modality for local staging; therefore, its use in suitable patients has the potential to expedite radical treatment when necessary and non-invasive diagnosis in patients with poor fitness.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate accuracy and inter-observer variability using Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) for discrimination between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: Between September 2017 and July 2018, 78 patients referred for suspected bladder cancer underwent multiparametric MRI of the bladder (mpMRI) prior to transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). All mpMRI were reviewed by two radiologists, who scored each lesion according to VI-RADS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each VI-RADS cutoff. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to evaluate the performance of mpMRI. The Ƙ statistics was used to estimate inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included in the final analysis, 53 with NMIBC and 22 with MIBC. Sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 89% for reader 1 and 82% and 85% for reader 2 respectively when the cutoff VI-RADS > 2 was used to define MIBC. At the same cutoff, PPV and NPV were 77% and 96% for reader 1 and 69% and 92% for reader 2. When the cutoff VI-RADS > 3 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 94% for reader 1 and 77% and 89% for reader 2. Corresponding PPV and NPV were 86% and 93% for reader 1 and 74% and 91% for reader 2. Area under curve was 0.926 and 0.873 for reader 1 and 2 respectively. Inter-reader agreement was good for the overall score (Ƙ = 0.731). CONCLUSIONS: VI-RADS is accurate in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC. Inter-reader agreement is overall good. KEY POINTS: • Traditionally, the local staging of bladder cancer relies on transurethral resection of bladder tumor. • However, transurethral resection of bladder tumor carries a significant risk of understaging a cancer; therefore, more accurate, faster, and non-invasive staging techniques are needed to improve outcomes. • Multiparametric MRI has proved to be the best imaging modality for local staging; therefore, its use in suitable patients has the potential to expedite radical treatment when necessary and non-invasive diagnosis in patients with poor fitness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm grading; Neoplasm staging; Urinary bladder neoplasms
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; Atul B Shinagare; Sree Harsha Tirumani; Mark A Preston; Mark G Vangel; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-09
Authors: Rasha Gendy; Warick Delprado; Phillip Brenner; Andrew Brooks; Graham Coombes; Paul Cozzi; Peter Nash; Manish I Patel Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Viktor Soukup; Otakar Čapoun; Daniel Cohen; Virginia Hernández; Marek Babjuk; Max Burger; Eva Compérat; Paolo Gontero; Thomas Lam; Steven MacLennan; A Hugh Mostafid; Joan Palou; Bas W G van Rhijn; Morgan Rouprêt; Shahrokh F Shariat; Richard Sylvester; Yuhong Yuan; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Niket Gandhi; Satheesh Krishna; Christopher M Booth; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Scott C Morgan; Nicola Schieda; Jean-Paul Salameh; Trevor A McGrath; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; V Anik Sahni; Steven C Eberhardt; Aytekin Oto; Oguz Akin; Lauren F Alexander; Brian C Allen; Fergus V Coakley; Adam T Froemming; Pat F Fulgham; Keyanoosh Hosseinzadeh; Jodi K Maranchie; Rekha N Mody; Nicola Schieda; David M Schuster; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Carolyn L Wang; Mark E Lockhart Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Zachary Klaassen; Ashish M Kamat; Wassim Kassouf; Paolo Gontero; Humberto Villavicencio; Joaquim Bellmunt; Bas W G van Rhijn; Arndt Hartmann; James W F Catto; Girish S Kulkarni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Eva Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Georgios Gakis; Thierry Lebret; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G Van der Heijden; Amir Sherif Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: V Hechler; M Rink; D Beyersdorff; M Beer; A J Beer; V Panebianco; M Pecoraro; C Bolenz; G Salomon Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Vittorio Fasulo; Marco Paciotti; Massimo Lazzeri; Roberto Contieri; Paolo Casale; Alberto Saita; Giovanni Lughezzani; Pietro Diana; Nicola Frego; Pier Paolo Avolio; Piergiuseppe Colombo; Grazia Maria Elefante; Giorgio Guazzoni; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Michael Bates; Rodolfo Hurle Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Francesco Del Giudice; Rocco Simone Flammia; Martina Pecoraro; Marco Moschini; David D'Andrea; Emanuele Messina; Lucia Martina Pisciotti; Ettore De Berardinis; Alessandro Sciarra; Valeria Panebianco Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Thaisa Gvozdenovic Medina Bricio; Gabriel Lion Gouvea; Rafael Vasconcelos Barros; Fernando Chahud; Jorge Elias; Rodolfo B Reis; Valdair F Muglia Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 5.605