OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v. 2.1 and v. 2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. RESULTS: 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cut-off ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cut-off ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v. 2.1 was higher than with v. 2 (TZ, 0.826-0.907 vs 0.788-0.856; PZ, 0.857-0.919 vs 0.853-0.902). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v. 2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v. 2. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v. 2.1 and v. 2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. RESULTS: 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cut-off ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cut-off ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v. 2.1 was higher than with v. 2 (TZ, 0.826-0.907 vs 0.788-0.856; PZ, 0.857-0.919 vs 0.853-0.902). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v. 2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v. 2. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.
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: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Janice N Thai; Harish A Narayanan; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Parita Shah; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; C Mathers; D M Parkin; M Piñeros; A Znaor; F Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.396