Dataset Information

Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Objective of our study was to determine the agreement between version 1 (v1) and v2 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy, their inter-observer agreement and practicability.

Material and methods

mpMRI including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) of 54 consecutive patients, who subsequently underwent MRI-guided in-bore biopsy were re-analyzed according to PI-RADS v1 and v2 by two independent readers. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was assessed using ROC-curve analysis. Agreement between PI-RADS versions and observers was calculated and the time needed for scoring was determined.

Results

MRI-guided biopsy revealed PCa in 31 patients. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa was equivalent with both PI-RADS versions for reader 1 with sensitivities and specificities of 84%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 100%/74% (AUC = 0.92 95% CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v2. Reader 2 achieved similar diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity of 74%/91% (AUC = 0.88 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 81%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v2. Agreement between scores determined with different PI-RADS versions was good (reader 1: ? = 0.62, reader 2: ? = 0.64). Inter-observer agreement was moderate with PI-RADS v2 (? = 0.56) and fair with v1 (? = 0.39). The time required for building the PI-RADS score was significantly lower with PI-RADS v2 compared to v1 (24.7±2.3 s vs. 41.9±2.6 s, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Agreement between PI-RADS versions was high and both versions revealed high diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa. Due to better inter-observer agreement for malignant lesions and less time demand, the new PI-RADS version could be more practicable for clinical routine.

SUBMITTER: Tewes S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5033350 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2.

Tewes Susanne S Mokov Nikolaj N Hartung Dagmar D Schick Volker V Peters Inga I Schedl Peter P Pertschy Stefanie S Wacker Frank F Voshage Götz G Hueper Katja K

PloS one 20160922 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Objective of our study was to determine the agreement between version 1 (v1) and v2 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy, their inter-observer agreement and practicability.<h4>Material and methods</h4>mpMRI including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) of 54 consecutive patients, who subsequently ...[more]

PMID: 27657729

Similar Datasets

Project description:CONTEXT:The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 analysis system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is based on PI-RADS v1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus opinion. OBJECTIVE:To summarize the accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADS v2, discuss pathway implications of its use and outline opportunities for improvements and future developments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:For this consensus expert opinion from the PI-RADS steering committee, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines for mpMRI PCa detection were evaluated. We focused on the performance characteristics of PI-RADS v2, comparing data to systems based on clinicoradiologic Likert scales and non-PI-RADS v2 imaging only. Evidence selections were based on high-quality, prospective, histologically verified data, with minimal patient selection and verifications biases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice retains higher accuracy over systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PI-RADS v2 fails to detect all cancers but does detect the majority of tumors capable of causing patient harm, which should not be missed. Test performance depends on the definition and prevalence of clinically significant disease. Good performance can be attained in practice when the quality of the diagnostic process can be assured, together with joint working of robustly trained radiologists and urologists, conducting biopsy procedures within multidisciplinary teams. CONCLUSIONS:It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice is improved, retaining higher accuracy over systematic TRUS biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY:Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-directed biopsies using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System improves the detection of prostate cancers likely to cause harm, and at the same time decreases the detection of disease that does not lead to harms if left untreated. The keys to success are high-quality imaging, reporting, and biopsies by radiologists and urologists working together in multidisciplinary teams.

Project description:Rationale and objectiveThe Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) published a set of minimum technical standards (MTS) to improve image quality and reduce variability in multiparametric prostate MRI. The effect of PIRADSv2 MTS on image quality has not been validated. We aimed to determine whether adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS improves study adequacy and perceived quality.Materials and methodsSixty-two prostate MRI examinations including T2 weighted (T2W) and diffusion weighted image (DWI) consecutively referred to our center from 62 different institutions within a 12-month period (September 2017 to September 2018) were included. Six readers assessed images as adequate or inadequate for use in PCa detection and a numerical image quality ranking was given using a 1-5 scale. The PI-RADSv2 MTS were synthesized into sets of seven and 10 rules for T2W and DWI, respectively. Image adherence was assessed using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata. Statistical analysis of survey results and image adherence was performed based on reader quality scoring (Kendall Rank tau-b) and reader adequate scoring (Wilcoxon test for association) for T2 and DWI quality assessment.ResultsOut of 62 images, 52 (83%) T2W and 38 (61%) DWIs were rated to be adequate by a majority of readers. Reader adequacy scores showed no significant association with adherence to PI-RADSv2. There was a weak (tau-b = 0.22) but significant (p value = 0.01) correlation between adherence to PIRADSv2 MTS and image quality for T2W. Studies following all PI-RADSv2 T2W rules achieved a higher median average quality score (3.58 for 7/7 vs. 3.0 for <7/7, p = 0.012). No statistical relationship with PI-RADSv2 MTS adherence and DWI quality was found.ConclusionAmong 62 sites performing prostate MRI, few were considered of high quality, but the majority were considered adequate. DWI showed considerably lower rates of adequate studies in the sample. Adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS did not increase the likelihood of having a qualitatively adequate T2W or DWI.

Project description:Recently, the standardized reporting and data system for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging studies, termed PSMA-RADS version 1.0, was introduced. We aimed to determine the interobserver agreement for applying PSMA-RADS to imaging interpretation of 18F-DCFPyL (2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid) PET examinations in a prospective setting mimicking the typical clinical workflow at a prostate cancer referral center. Methods: Four readers (2 experienced readers (ERs, >3 y of PSMA-targeted PET interpretation experience) and 2 inexperienced readers (IRs, <1 y of experience)), who had all read the initial publication on PSMA-RADS 1.0, assessed 50 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT studies independently. Per scan, a maximum of 5 target lesions was selected by the observers, and a PSMA-RADS score for every target lesion was recorded. No specific preexisting conditions were placed on the selection of the target lesions, although PSMA-RADS 1.0 suggests that readers focus on the most avid or largest lesions. An overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was indicated, and interobserver agreement rates on a target lesion-based, on an organ-based, and on an overall PSMA-RADS score-based level were computed. Results: The number of target lesions identified by each observer was as follows: ER 1, 123; ER 2, 134; IR 1, 123; and IR 2, 120. Among those selected target lesions, 125 were chosen by at least 2 individual observers (all 4 readers selected the same target lesion in 58 of 125 [46.4%] instances, 3 readers in 40 of 125 [32%], and 2 observers in 27 of 125 [21.6%]). The interobserver agreement for PSMA-RADS scoring among identical target lesions was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] for 4, 3, and 2 identical target lesions, ?0.60, respectively). For lymph nodes, an excellent interobserver agreement was derived (ICC, 0.79). The interobserver agreement for an overall scan impression based on PSMA-RADS was also excellent (ICC, 0.84), with a significant difference for ER (ICC, 0.97) vs. IR (ICC, 0.74) (P = 0.005). Conclusion: PSMA-RADS demonstrated a high concordance rate in this study, even among readers with different levels of experience. This finding suggests that PSMA-RADS can be effectively used for communication with clinicians and can be implemented in the collection of data for large prospective trials.

Dataset Information

Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2.

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets