Dataset Information

Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To assess the value of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system in the detection of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI in comparison to the standard PI-RADS 2.0 system and to assess its inter-reader variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This IRB-approved study included 229 patients undergoing multiparametric prostate MRI prior to MRI-guided TRUS-based biopsy, which were retrospectively recruited from our prospectively maintained institutional database. Two readers with high (reader 1, 6 years) and low (reader 2, 2 years) level of expertise identified the lesion with the highest PI-RADS score for both version 2.0 and 2.1 for each patient. Inter-reader agreement was estimated, and diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed. RESULTS:Inter-reader agreement on PI-RADS scores was fair for both version 2.0 (kappa: 0.57) and 2.1 (kappa: 0.51). Detection rates for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) were almost identical for both PI-RADS versions and higher for the more experienced reader (AUC, Reader 1: PCa, 0.881-0.887, csPCa, 0.874-0.879; Reader 2: PCa, 0.765, csPCa, 0.746-0.747; both p > 0.05), both when using a PI-RADS score of ? 4 and ?3 as indicators for positivity for cancer. CONCLUSIONS:The new PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system showed comparable diagnostic performance and inter-reader variability compared to version 2.0. The introduced changes in the version 2.1 seem only to take effect in a very small number of patients.

SUBMITTER: Hotker AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7535021 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

Hötker Andreas M AM Blüthgen Christian C Rupp Niels J NJ Schneider Aurelia F AF Eberli Daniel D Donati Olivio F OF

PloS one 20201005 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess the value of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system in the detection of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI in comparison to the standard PI-RADS 2.0 system and to assess its inter-reader variability.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This IRB-approved study included 229 patients undergoing multiparametric prostate MRI prior to MRI-guided TRUS-based biopsy, which were retrospectively recruited from our prospectively maintained institutional database. Two readers with high (reader ...[more]

PMID: 33017413

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.MethodsWe analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement.ResultsThe agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%).ConclusionWe observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted.Key points• Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 - 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 - 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Project description:Background In 2017, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) included an algorithm for the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with local-regional therapy. The aim of the algorithm was to enable standardized evaluation of treatment response to guide subsequent therapy. However, the performance of the algorithm has not yet been validated in the literature. Purpose To evaluate the performance of the LI-RADS 2017 Treatment Response algorithm for assessing the histopathologic viability of HCC treated with bland arterial embolization. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent bland arterial embolization for HCC between 2006 and 2016 and subsequent liver transplantation. Three radiologists independently assessed all treated lesions by using the CT/MRI LI-RADS 2017 Treatment Response algorithm. Radiology and posttransplant histopathology reports were then compared. Lesions were categorized on the basis of explant pathologic findings as either completely (100%) or incompletely (<100%) necrotic, and performance characteristics and predictive values for the LI-RADS Treatment Response (LR-TR) Viable and Nonviable categories were calculated for each reader. Interreader association was calculated by using the Fleiss κ. Results A total of 45 adults (mean age, 57.1 years ± 8.2; 13 women) with 63 total lesions were included. For predicting incomplete histopathologic tumor necrosis, the accuracy of the LR-TR Viable category for the three readers was 60%-65%, and the positive predictive value was 86%-96%. For predicting complete histopathologic tumor necrosis, the accuracy of the LR-TR Nonviable category was 67%-71%, and the negative predictive value was 81%-87%. By consensus, 17 (27%) of 63 lesions were categorized as LR-TR Equivocal, and 12 of these lesions were incompletely necrotic. Interreader association for the LR-TR category was moderate (κ = 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.47, 0.67). Conclusion The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 2017 Treatment Response algorithm had high predictive value and moderate interreader association for the histopathologic viability of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with bland arterial embolization when lesions were assessed as Viable or Nonviable. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Gervais in this issue.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

Publications

Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets