The validity and agreement of PI-RADS v2 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 4, 303 - 309, 24.09.2021

Şehnaz Tezcan , Ülkü Bekar , Müge Onbaşıoğlu Gürbüz , Giray Ergin

https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.977881

An Erratum to this article was published on July 26, 2022. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/acmj/issue/71309/1148859

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate accuracy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in detection of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PC) and determine agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version2 (PI-RADS v2) among three readers.
Material and Method: The study included 65 (32 malignancy, 33 benign) patients with clinically suspected PC who were underwent mpMRI between January 2017 and January 2020 followed by biopsy or prostatectomy. The images were evaluated by three readers who were blinded to patient data. The inter-observer agreement was analyzed with Cohen’s weighted kappa statistics.
Results: 74 lesions were detected in 46 patients among 65 patients. When a PI-RADS assessment category ≥3 (K value, 0.406-0.632) was considered positive for CS PC for readers, higher sensitivity, lower specificity and lower agreement was found than PI-RADS ≥4 (K value, 0.545-0.667). The sensitivity and specificity of index lesion detection ranged from 71.8%-90.6%, 60.6%-72.7%, respectively. We found moderate to substantial agreement for index lesion detection. The agreement of PZ lesions was higher than TZ lesions. The agreement in DWI scores was higher than the agreement in T2 scores between readers.
Conclusion: By using PI-RADS v2, high sensitivity but moderate specificity was found in detection of index lesion. The agreement in PI-RADS category assignment was moderate among readers. The agreement and sensitivity in threshold of PI-RADS 4 was higher than PI-RADS 3. TZ lesions showed more variability among radiologists than PZ lesions by using PI-RADS v2.

Keywords

the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2, prostate cancer, inter-observer agreement

References

• Kohestani K, Wallström J, Dehlfors N, et al. Performance and inter-observer variability of prostate MRI (PI-RADS version 2) outside high-volume centres. Scand J Urol 2019; 53: 304-11.
• Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Interreader variability of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 1-8.
• Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, Mostardeiro TR, Herts BR, Klein EA. Accuracy and interobserver agreement for prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209: 339-49.
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57.
• American College of Radiology. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS.Published 2015.
• Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. Comparative Study J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45: 579-85.
• Mussi TC, Yamauchi FI, Tridente CF, et al. Interobserver agreement of PI-RADS v. 2 lexicon among radiologists with different levels of experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 51: 593-602.
• Mussi TC, Yamauchi FI, Tridente CF, et al. Interobserver agreement and positivity of PI-RADS version 2 among radiologists with different levels of experience. Acad Radiol 2019; 26: 1017-22.
• Seibert MK, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 726-31.
• Popita C, Popita A, Andrei A, et al. Interobserver agreement in prostate cancer detection using multiparametric MRI. J BUON 2018; 23: 1061-9.
• Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280: 793-804.
• Kim SH, Choi MS, Kim MJ, et al. Role of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in characterization and grading of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2017; 94: 154-9.
• Rosenkrantz AB, Sabach A, Babb JS, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: W471-8.
• Franco FB, Fennessy FM. Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45: 3982-9.
• Xu L, Zhang G, Shi B, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 2019; 19: 90.
• Trimboli RM, Verardi N, Cartia F, Carbonaro LA, Sardanelli F. Breast cancer detection using double reading of unenhanced MRI including T1-weighted, T2-weighted STIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging: a proof of concept study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 674-81.
• Puech P, Randazzo M, Ouzzane A, et al. How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI? Curr Opin Urol 2015; 25: 522-35.
• Holtz JN, Silverman RK, Tay KJ, et al. New prostate cancer prognostic grade group (PGG): can multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) accurately separate patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-grade cancer? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43: 702-12.