Matthew D Greer1,2, Joanna H Shih, Nathan Lay, Tristan Barrett, Leonardo Bittencourt, Samuel Borofsky, Ismail Kabakus, Yan Mee Law, Jamie Marko, Haytham Shebel3, Maria J Merino4, Bradford J Wood5, Peter A Pinto6, Ronald M Summers7, Peter L Choyke, Baris Turkbey. 1. 1 Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, MSC 1182, Bethesda, MD 20892. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 3. 10 Department of Radiology, Urology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. 4. 11 Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 5. 12 Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Radiologic Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 6. 13 Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 7. 14 National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Imaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement among radiologists in detecting and assessing prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients underwent 3-T multipara-metric MRI between April 2012 and June 2015. Among the 163 patients evaluated, 110 underwent prostatectomy after MRI and 53 had normal MRI findings and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy results. Nine radiologists participated (three each with high, intermediate, and low levels of experience). Readers interpreted images of 58 patients on average (range, 56-60) using PI-RADSv2. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth. Interob-server agreement was evaluated with the index of specific agreement for lesion detection and kappa and proportion of agreement for PI-RADS category assignment. RESULTS: The radiologists detected 336 lesions. Sensitivity for index lesions was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.1-85.9%), comparable across reader experience (p = 0.392). Patient-level specificity was experience dependent; highly experienced readers had 84.0% specificity versus 55.2% for all others (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent for detecting index lesions (index of specific agreement, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.798-0.923). Agreement on PI-RADSv2 category assignment of index lesions was moderate (κ = 0.419; 95% CI, 0.238-0.595). For individual category assignments, proportion of agreement was slight for PI-RADS category 3 (0.208; 95% CI, 0.086-0.284) but substantial for PI-RADS category 4 (0.674; 95% CI, 0.540-0.776). However, proportion of agreement for T2-weighted PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone was 0.250 (95% CI, 0.108-0.372). Proportion of agreement for category assignment of index lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.728-0.903), on T2-weighted MR images was 0.515 (95% CI, 0.430-0623), and on DW images was 0.586 (95% CI, 0.495-0.682). Proportion of agreement for dominant lesion was excellent (0.828; 95% CI, 0.742-0.913). CONCLUSION: Radiologists across experience levels had excellent agreement for detecting index lesions and moderate agreement for category assignment of lesions using PI-RADS. Future iterations of PI-RADS should clarify PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement among radiologists in detecting and assessing prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients underwent 3-T multipara-metric MRI between April 2012 and June 2015. Among the 163 patients evaluated, 110 underwent prostatectomy after MRI and 53 had normal MRI findings and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy results. Nine radiologists participated (three each with high, intermediate, and low levels of experience). Readers interpreted images of 58 patients on average (range, 56-60) using PI-RADSv2. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth. Interob-server agreement was evaluated with the index of specific agreement for lesion detection and kappa and proportion of agreement for PI-RADS category assignment. RESULTS: The radiologists detected 336 lesions. Sensitivity for index lesions was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.1-85.9%), comparable across reader experience (p = 0.392). Patient-level specificity was experience dependent; highly experienced readers had 84.0% specificity versus 55.2% for all others (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent for detecting index lesions (index of specific agreement, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.798-0.923). Agreement on PI-RADSv2 category assignment of index lesions was moderate (κ = 0.419; 95% CI, 0.238-0.595). For individual category assignments, proportion of agreement was slight for PI-RADS category 3 (0.208; 95% CI, 0.086-0.284) but substantial for PI-RADS category 4 (0.674; 95% CI, 0.540-0.776). However, proportion of agreement for T2-weighted PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone was 0.250 (95% CI, 0.108-0.372). Proportion of agreement for category assignment of index lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.728-0.903), on T2-weighted MR images was 0.515 (95% CI, 0.430-0623), and on DW images was 0.586 (95% CI, 0.495-0.682). Proportion of agreement for dominant lesion was excellent (0.828; 95% CI, 0.742-0.913). CONCLUSION: Radiologists across experience levels had excellent agreement for detecting index lesions and moderate agreement for category assignment of lesions using PI-RADS. Future iterations of PI-RADS should clarify PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone.
Entities:
Keywords:
PI-RADS version 2; agreement; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sasha C Druskin; Ryan Ward; Andrei S Purysko; Allen Young; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Kamyar Ghabili; Darian Andreas; Eric Klein; Ashley E Ross; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Florian A Distler; Jan P Radtke; David Bonekamp; Claudia Kesch; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Kathrin Wieczorek; Marietta Kirchner; Sascha Pahernik; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher S Lim; Matthew D F McInnes; Robert S Lim; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Satheesh Krishna; Christopher Morash; Wael M Shabana; Nicola Schieda Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Andreas M Hötker; Olivio F Donati; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Iliana Mebert; Riccardo Laudicella; Anka Baltensperger; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Julian Müller; Ashkan Mortezavi; Marcelo T Sapienza; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tobias Hepp; Laura Kalmbach; Manuel Kolb; Petros Martirosian; Tom Hilbert; Wolfgang M Thaiss; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jens Bedke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Stephan Kruck; Sascha Kaufmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.661
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