Kye Jin Park1, Sang Hyun Choi1, Ji Sung Lee2,3, Jeong Kon Kim1, Mi-Hyun Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Clinical Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated interreader agreement with PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 for detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Library between 2015 and June 3, 2019 to identify original research reporting interreader agreement in the use of PI-RADS version 2. Quality of the retrieved studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. Pooled κ for PI-RADS version 2 was calculated, and a head-to-head comparison with version 1 was performed for the available studies. Subgroup analysis was performed according to zonal anatomy (peripheral or transitional zone), cutoff value (4 or higher, or 3 or higher) and specific imaging sequences (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced). Meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the cause of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies (4,095 patients) were included. Pooled κ of PI-RADS version 2 was 0.61 (95% CI 0.55-0.67). In 4 studies evaluating head-to-head comparisons PI-RADS versions 1 and 2 showed similar pooled κ values (0.61, 95% CI 0.33-0.90 vs 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.79; p=0.61). Substantial interreader agreement was noted with a cutoff of 4 or higher (κ=0.61) and moderate agreement was observed with a cutoff of 3 or higher (κ=0.57), peripheral zone (κ=0.64), transitional zone (κ=0.49) and the 3 magnetic resonance imaging sequences (κ 0.42-0.58). Difference in reader experience was the single significant factor affecting study heterogeneity (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS version 2 provides substantial interreader agreement in overall scoring in patients with suspicious prostate cancer, with a similar level of agreement to version 1.
PURPOSE: We evaluated interreader agreement with PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 for detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Library between 2015 and June 3, 2019 to identify original research reporting interreader agreement in the use of PI-RADS version 2. Quality of the retrieved studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. Pooled κ for PI-RADS version 2 was calculated, and a head-to-head comparison with version 1 was performed for the available studies. Subgroup analysis was performed according to zonal anatomy (peripheral or transitional zone), cutoff value (4 or higher, or 3 or higher) and specific imaging sequences (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced). Meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the cause of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies (4,095 patients) were included. Pooled κ of PI-RADS version 2 was 0.61 (95% CI 0.55-0.67). In 4 studies evaluating head-to-head comparisons PI-RADS versions 1 and 2 showed similar pooled κ values (0.61, 95% CI 0.33-0.90 vs 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.79; p=0.61). Substantial interreader agreement was noted with a cutoff of 4 or higher (κ=0.61) and moderate agreement was observed with a cutoff of 3 or higher (κ=0.57), peripheral zone (κ=0.64), transitional zone (κ=0.49) and the 3 magnetic resonance imaging sequences (κ 0.42-0.58). Difference in reader experience was the single significant factor affecting study heterogeneity (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS version 2 provides substantial interreader agreement in overall scoring in patients with suspicious prostate cancer, with a similar level of agreement to version 1.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; prostate; prostatic neoplasms
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: Andreas G Wibmer; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Josip Nincevic; Ines Nikolovski; Evis Sala; Mithat Gonen; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael J Zelefsky; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 7.450