OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Likert and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) multiparametric (mp) MRI scoring systems for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: 199 biopsy-naïve males undergoing prostate mpMRI were prospectively scored with Likert and PI-RADS systems by four experienced radiologists. A binary cut-off (threshold score ≥3) was used to analyze histological results by three groups: negative, insignificant disease (Gleason 3 + 3; iPCa), and csPCa (Gleason ≥3 +4). Lesion-level results and prostate zonal location were also compared. RESULTS: 129/199 (64.8%) males underwent biopsy, 96 with Likert or PI-RADS score ≥3, and 21 with negative MRI. A further 12 patients were biopsied during follow-up (mean 507 days). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 87/199 (43.7%) patients, 65 with (33.6%) csPCa. 30/92 (32.6%) patients with negative MRI were biopsied, with an NPV of 83.3% for cancer and 86.7% for csPCa. Likert and PI-RADS score differences were observed in 92 patients (46.2%), but only for 16 patients (8%) at threshold score ≥3. Likert scoring had higher specificity than PI-RADS (0.77 vs 0.66), higher area under the curve (0.92 vs 0.87, p = 0.002) and higher PPV (0.66 vs 0.58); NPV and sensitivity were the same. Likert had more five score results (58%) compared to PI-RADS (36%), but with similar csCPa detection (81.0 and 80.6% respectively). Likert demonstrated lower proportion of false positive in the predominately AFMS-involving lesions. CONCLUSION: Likert and PI-RADS systems both demonstrate high cancer detection rates. Likert scoring had a higher AUC with moderately higher specificity and lower positive call rate and could potentially help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper illustrates that the Likert scoring system has potential to help urologists reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Likert and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) multiparametric (mp) MRI scoring systems for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: 199 biopsy-naïve males undergoing prostate mpMRI were prospectively scored with Likert and PI-RADS systems by four experienced radiologists. A binary cut-off (threshold score ≥3) was used to analyze histological results by three groups: negative, insignificant disease (Gleason 3 + 3; iPCa), and csPCa (Gleason ≥3 +4). Lesion-level results and prostate zonal location were also compared. RESULTS: 129/199 (64.8%) males underwent biopsy, 96 with Likert or PI-RADS score ≥3, and 21 with negative MRI. A further 12 patients were biopsied during follow-up (mean 507 days). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 87/199 (43.7%) patients, 65 with (33.6%) csPCa. 30/92 (32.6%) patients with negative MRI were biopsied, with an NPV of 83.3% for cancer and 86.7% for csPCa. Likert and PI-RADS score differences were observed in 92 patients (46.2%), but only for 16 patients (8%) at threshold score ≥3. Likert scoring had higher specificity than PI-RADS (0.77 vs 0.66), higher area under the curve (0.92 vs 0.87, p = 0.002) and higher PPV (0.66 vs 0.58); NPV and sensitivity were the same. Likert had more five score results (58%) compared to PI-RADS (36%), but with similar csCPa detection (81.0 and 80.6% respectively). Likert demonstrated lower proportion of false positive in the predominately AFMS-involving lesions. CONCLUSION: Likert and PI-RADS systems both demonstrate high cancer detection rates. Likert scoring had a higher AUC with moderately higher specificity and lower positive call rate and could potentially help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper illustrates that the Likert scoring system has potential to help urologists reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Nicolas Barry-Delongchamps; Eric Bruguière; Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-19 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: Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12
Authors: Christopher C Khoo; David Eldred-Evans; Max Peters; Mariana Bertoncelli Tanaka; Mohamed Noureldin; Saiful Miah; Taimur Shah; Martin J Connor; Deepika Reddy; Martin Clark; Amish Lakhani; Andrea Rockall; Feargus Hosking-Jervis; Emma Cullen; Manit Arya; David Hrouda; Hasan Qazi; Mathias Winkler; Henry Tam; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.969
Authors: Gabriele Gaziev; Karan Wadhwa; Tristan Barrett; Brendan C Koo; Ferdia A Gallagher; Eva Serrao; Julia Frey; Jonas Seidenader; Lina Carmona; Anne Warren; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Andrew Doble; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Muammer Altok; Cihan Demirel; Hyunseon C Kang; Haesun Choi; David John; Irene A Inguillo; John W Davis; John F Ward Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: Hayley Pye; Saurabh Singh; Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Vasilis Stavrinides; Alistair Grey; Eoin Dinneen; Elly Pilavachi; Joey Clemente; Susan Heavey; Urszula Stopka-Farooqui; Benjamin S Simpson; Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Dominic Patel; Peter Barker; Keith Burling; Nicola Stevens; Tony Ng; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; David Hawkes; Daniel C Alexander; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Aiman Haider; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; David Atkinson; Clare Allen; Greg Shaw; Teresita Beeston; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Arash Latifoltojar; Edward W Johnston; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani; Hayley C Whitaker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Artitaya Lophatananon; Matthew H V Byrne; Tristan Barrett; Anne Warren; Kenneth Muir; Ibifuro Dokubo; Fanos Georgiades; Mostafa Sheba; Lisa Bibby; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.638