Kimia Kohestani1,2, Jonas Wallström3,4, Niclas Dehlfors4, Ole Martin Sponga5, Marianne Månsson1, Andreas Josefsson1,2,6,7, Sigrid Carlsson1,8, Mikael Hellström3,4, Jonas Hugosson1,2. 1. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Department of Urology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Radiology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Radiology, Carlanderska Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 7. Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Umeå, Sweden. 8. Department of Surgery (Urology Service) and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
Objective: Despite the growing trend to embrace pre-biopsy MRI in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PC), its performance and inter-observer variability outside high-volume centres remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate sensitivity of and variability between readers of prostate MRI outside specialized units with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard.Materials and methods: Retrospective study comprising a consecutive cohort of all 97 men who underwent MRI and subsequent RP between January 2012 and December 2014 at a private hospital in Sweden. Three readers, blinded to clinical data, reviewed all images (including 11 extra prostate MRI to reduce bias). A tumour was considered detected if the overall PI-RADS v2 score was 3-5 and there was an approximate match (same or neighbouring sector) of tumour sector according to a 24 sector system used for both MRI and whole mount sections. Results: Detection rate for the index tumour ranged from 67 to 76%, if PI-RADS 3-5 lesions were considered positive and 54-66% if only PI-RADS score 4-5 tumours were included. Detection rate for aggressive tumours (GS ≥ 4 + 3) was higher; 83.1% for PI-RADS 3-5 and 79.2% for PI-RADS 4-5. The agreement between readers showed average [Formula: see text] values of 0.41 for PI-RADS score 3-5 and 0.51 for PI-RADS score 4-5.Conclusions: Prostate MRI evidenced a moderate detection rate for clinically significant PC with a rather large variability between readers. Clinics outside specialized units must have knowledge of their performance of prostate MRI before considering omitting biopsies in men with negative MRI.
Objective: Despite the growing trend to embrace pre-biopsy MRI in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PC), its performance and inter-observer variability outside high-volume centres remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate sensitivity of and variability between readers of prostate MRI outside specialized units with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard.Materials and methods: Retrospective study comprising a consecutive cohort of all 97 men who underwent MRI and subsequent RP between January 2012 and December 2014 at a private hospital in Sweden. Three readers, blinded to clinical data, reviewed all images (including 11 extra prostate MRI to reduce bias). A tumour was considered detected if the overall PI-RADS v2 score was 3-5 and there was an approximate match (same or neighbouring sector) of tumour sector according to a 24 sector system used for both MRI and whole mount sections. Results: Detection rate for the index tumour ranged from 67 to 76%, if PI-RADS 3-5 lesions were considered positive and 54-66% if only PI-RADS score 4-5 tumours were included. Detection rate for aggressive tumours (GS ≥ 4 + 3) was higher; 83.1% for PI-RADS 3-5 and 79.2% for PI-RADS 4-5. The agreement between readers showed average [Formula: see text] values of 0.41 for PI-RADS score 3-5 and 0.51 for PI-RADS score 4-5.Conclusions: Prostate MRI evidenced a moderate detection rate for clinically significant PC with a rather large variability between readers. Clinics outside specialized units must have knowledge of their performance of prostate MRI before considering omitting biopsies in men with negative MRI.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Abimbola Ayoola; David Hoffman; Anunita Khasgiwala; Vinay Prabhu; Paul Smereka; Molly Somberg; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Samuel Borofsky; Arvin K George; Sonia Gaur; Marcelino Bernardo; Matthew D Greer; Francesca V Mertan; Myles Taffel; Vanesa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Charlie J Gillis; Thomas M Southall; Robert Wilson; Michelle Anderson; Jennifer Young; Richard Hewitt; Matthew Andrews Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Borna K Barth; Katharina Martini; Stephan M Skawran; Florian A Schmid; Niels J Rupp; Laura Zuber; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-27
Authors: Oscar J Pellicer-Valero; José L Marenco Jiménez; Victor Gonzalez-Perez; Juan Luis Casanova Ramón-Borja; Isabel Martín García; María Barrios Benito; Paula Pelechano Gómez; José Rubio-Briones; María José Rupérez; José D Martín-Guerrero Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Luigi A M J G van Riel; Auke Jager; Dennie Meijer; Arnoud W Postema; Ruth S Smit; André N Vis; Theo M de Reijke; Harrie P Beerlage; Jorg R Oddens Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-03-26
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Carrieri; Gian Maria Busetto; Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Alessandro Sciarra; Martina Maggi; Felice Crocetto; Biagio Barone; Vincenzo Francesco Caputo; Michele Marchioni; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Ciro Imbimbo; Francesco Alessandro Mistretta; Stefano Luzzago; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Luigi Cormio; Riccardo Autorino; Octavian Sabin Tătaru Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-07-04
Authors: Lois Kim; Nicholas Boxall; Anne George; Keith Burling; Pete Acher; Jonathan Aning; Stuart McCracken; Toby Page; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 8.775