Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for tr
- PDF / 1,232,672 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 65 Downloads / 272 Views
SPECIAL SECTION: PROSTATE CANCER
Comparison of PI‑RADS version 2.1 and PI‑RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer Lili Xu1 · Gumuyang Zhang1 · Daming Zhang1 · Xiaoxiao Zhang1 · Xin Bai1 · Weigang Yan2 · Yi Zhou2 · Zhien Zhou2 · Yu Xiao3 · Zhengyu Jin1 · Hao Sun1 Received: 27 May 2020 / Revised: 15 August 2020 / Accepted: 30 August 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and PI-RADS v2 for transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC), and analyse its performance for readers with different experience levels. Methods Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer who underwent biopsy after MRI scan between January and December 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. One junior radiologist (reader 1, 1 year of experience in using PI-RADS v2) and one senior radiologist (reader 2, 6 years of experience) independently reviewed and assigned a score for each lesion according to PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. The template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was used for standard of reference. To compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods, the AUC was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated at predefined positive values (PI-RADS ≥ 3). The interreader agreement and frequency of prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category were also calculated. Results Among the 85 patients, 27 had prostate cancers, and 25 were clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The AUC values for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer significantly increased with PI-RADS v2.1 for reader 2 (0.766 vs. 0.902, P = 0.009). The specificity and accuracy for both readers also increased with PI-RADS v2.1 (specificity: reader 1, 41.7% vs. 78.3% and reader 2, 33.3% vs. 81.7%; accuracy: reader 1, 52.9% vs. 76.5% and reader 2, 48.2% vs. 83.5%, all P 0.5 mL, and/or extraprostatic
Fig. 1 Flowchart of patient recruitment in this study
Abdominal Radiology
extension. For patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), the RP pathological slices were reviewed to calculate tumour volume and record the presence or absence of extraprostatic extension. While for other patients who did not receive RP, tumour volume calculated from MR images was used to define clinically significant prostate cancer [19].
MR imaging technique A 3.0-T MRI scanner (GE750, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) with an abdominal eight-channel phased-array coil was used to perform prostate mpMRI, including T2WI and DWI. Corresponding apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were calculated automatically (using b-values of 0 and 800 mm2/s). Images with b-value of 2000 or 1500 mm2/s were used for evaluation. The detailed MR imaging acquisition parameters applied in this study are shown in Table 1. T1WI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging were also performed but were not assessed in the present study.
Image analysis A radiologist (with 3 years of exper
Data Loading...
