Dataset Information

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

ABSTRACT: Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

SUBMITTER: Westphalen AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7373346 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

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:BackgroundMultiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) combined with machine-aided approaches have shown high accuracy and sensitivity in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. However, radiomics-based analysis has not been thoroughly compared with Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scores.PurposeTo develop and validate a radiomics-based model for differentiating PCa and assessing its aggressiveness compared with PI-RADS v2 scores.Study typeRetrospective.PopulationIn all, 182 patients with biopsy-proven PCa and 199 patients with a biopsy-proven absence of cancer were enrolled in our study.Field strength/sequenceConventional and diffusion-weighted MR images (b values = 0, 1000 sec/mm2 ) were acquired on a 3.0T MR scanner.AssessmentA total of 396 features and 385 features were extracted from apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images and T2 WI, respectively. A predictive model was constructed for differentiating PCa from non-PCa and high-grade from low-grade PCa. The diagnostic performance of each radiomics-based model was compared with that of the PI-RADS v2 scores.Statistical testsA radiomics-based predictive model was constructed by logistic regression analysis. 70% of the patients were assigned to the training group, and the remaining were assigned to the validation group. The diagnostic efficacy was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) in both the training and validation groups.ResultsFor PCa versus non-PCa, the validation model had an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.985, 0.982, and 0.999 with T2 WI, ADC, and T2 WI&ADC features, respectively. For low-grade versus high-grade PCa, the validation model had an AUC of 0.865, 0.888, and 0.93 with T2 WI, ADC, and T2 WI&ADC features, respectively. PI-RADS v2 had an AUC of 0.867 in differentiating PCa from non-PCa and an AUC of 0.763 in differentiating high-grade from low-grade PCa.Data conclusionBoth the T2 WI- and ADC-based radiomics models showed high diagnostic efficacy and outperformed the PI-RADS v2 scores in distinguishing cancerous vs. noncancerous prostate tissue and high-grade vs. low-grade PCa.Level of evidence3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:875-884.

Dataset Information

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets