Serdar Aslan1, Ismet Mirac Cakir2, Ural Oguz3, Tumay Bekci2, Erhan Demirelli3. 1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey. serdaraslan28@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey. 3. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate the accuracy and validity of the biparametric MRI (bp-MRI), including T2-weigthed image (WI) and DWI sequences, and the availability of an alternative to the multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), for the muscle-invasiveness assessment of bladder cancer (BC). (2) To evaluate the diagnostic performance and agreement of readers with different experiences in the abdominal imaging of using both protocols. METHODS: Preoperative bladder mp-MRI was performed on 128 patients with a initial diagnosis of BC. Two sets of images, set 1 (bp-MRI) and set 2 (mp-MRI), were independently evaluated by both readers. Descriptive statistics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC), for VI-RADS scores were calculated using ≥ 4 as the cutoff for muscle invasion for each reader and image sets. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using the Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The sensitivity ranged between 90.3-93.5% and 87.1-90.3%, specificity ranged between 96.6-99.1% and 91.6-96.6%, accuracy ranged between 96-97.3% and 91.3-94.6%, and AUC ranged between 0.947-0.951 and 0.919-0.921, for bp-MRI and mp-MRI, and reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. No significant differences were shown in diagnostic performance for either reader between both the protocols (p = 0.238 and 0.318). There was excellent agreement among the readers in the VI-RADS scores, using both protocols. CONCLUSION: A bp-MRI protocol has a diagnostic accuracy comparable to an mp-MRI protocol for the detection of muscle-invasive BC using the VI-RADS criteria. Also, in both MRI protocols, the reader's experience does not appear to significantly affect diagnostic performance when using the VI-RADS criteria.
PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate the accuracy and validity of the biparametric MRI (bp-MRI), including T2-weigthed image (WI) and DWI sequences, and the availability of an alternative to the multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), for the muscle-invasiveness assessment of bladder cancer (BC). (2) To evaluate the diagnostic performance and agreement of readers with different experiences in the abdominal imaging of using both protocols. METHODS: Preoperative bladder mp-MRI was performed on 128 patients with a initial diagnosis of BC. Two sets of images, set 1 (bp-MRI) and set 2 (mp-MRI), were independently evaluated by both readers. Descriptive statistics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC), for VI-RADS scores were calculated using ≥ 4 as the cutoff for muscle invasion for each reader and image sets. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using the Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The sensitivity ranged between 90.3-93.5% and 87.1-90.3%, specificity ranged between 96.6-99.1% and 91.6-96.6%, accuracy ranged between 96-97.3% and 91.3-94.6%, and AUC ranged between 0.947-0.951 and 0.919-0.921, for bp-MRI and mp-MRI, and reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. No significant differences were shown in diagnostic performance for either reader between both the protocols (p = 0.238 and 0.318). There was excellent agreement among the readers in the VI-RADS scores, using both protocols. CONCLUSION: A bp-MRI protocol has a diagnostic accuracy comparable to an mp-MRI protocol for the detection of muscle-invasive BC using the VI-RADS criteria. Also, in both MRI protocols, the reader's experience does not appear to significantly affect diagnostic performance when using the VI-RADS criteria.
Authors: Marko Babjuk; Andreas Böhle; Maximilian Burger; Otakar Capoun; Daniel Cohen; Eva M Compérat; Virginia Hernández; Eero Kaasinen; Joan Palou; Morgan Rouprêt; Bas W G van Rhijn; Shahrokh F Shariat; Viktor Soukup; Richard J Sylvester; Richard Zigeuner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ahmet Akcay; Ahmet Baki Yagci; Sinan Celen; Yusuf Ozlulerden; Nilay Sen Turk; Furkan Ufuk Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Eva Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Georgios Gakis; Thierry Lebret; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G Van der Heijden; Amir Sherif Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Valeria Panebianco; Yoshifumi Narumi; Ersan Altun; Bernard H Bochner; Jason A Efstathiou; Shaista Hafeez; Robert Huddart; Steve Kennish; Seth Lerner; Rodolfo Montironi; Valdair F Muglia; Georg Salomon; Stephen Thomas; Hebert Alberto Vargas; J Alfred Witjes; Mitsuru Takeuchi; Jelle Barentsz; James W F Catto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 20.096