Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS V2 and V2.1 and Interobserver Agreement in Both Versions
Öz
Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers and interobserver agreement between PI-RADS v2 and v2.1
Material and Method: The mpMRI images of 258 patients and 394 nodüles included in this retrospective study were obtained on 3T MR and evaluated by two radiologists according to PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. Sensitivity and specificity between v2 and v2.1 compared. Detection rates for clinically significant prostate cancers of upgraded and downgraded lesions in the use of v2.1 from v2 were assessed. Interobserver agreement was assessed using κ statistics.
Results: PI-RADS v2.1 and v2 showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity (100%, 52.38%) in peripheral zone and showed higher sensitivity and specificity (92.86%, 98.79%) in transition zone for category ≥4 lesions in the detection of csPCa, not significantly difference was found between the two versions. Interobserver agreement was statistically significant and very weak in the transition zone (κ=0.383, κ=0.279, respectively), very strong in the peripheral zone (κ=0.869) according to both classifications and they were similar.
Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 were found similar in detecting clinically significant cancers and all cancers in both zones. The clinically significant cancer detection rate in category 2+1 lesions in the transition zone was higher than in category 2 lesions but it wasn’t statistically significant. Interobserver agreement was low in the transition zone and very strong in the peripheral zone in both versions.
Anahtar Kelimeler
PI-RADS V2.1, clinically significant prostate cancer, interobserver agreement
Etik Beyan
Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study with a waiver of informed consent.
Kaynakça
- Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002. Epub 2014 Mar 14. PMID: 24666839.
- Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. Epub 2018 Mar 18. PMID: 29552975.
- Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System: Version 2, PI-RADS Steering Committee, 2014
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. Epub 2012 Feb 10. PMID: 22322308; PMCID: PMC3297750.
- Smith CP, Türkbey B. PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook. Turk J Urol. 2018 May;44(3):189-194. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.12144. Epub 2018 May 1. PMID: 29733790; PMCID: PMC5937636.
- Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. Epub 2015 Oct 1. PMID: 26427566; PMCID: PMC6467207.
- Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038. Epub 2015 Sep 8. PMID: 26361169; PMCID: PMC6364687.
- Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. Epub 2019 Mar 18. PMID: 30898406.
- Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Feuth T et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):207-17. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120281. Epub 2012 Nov 9. PMID: 23143029.
- Linhares Moreira AS, De Visschere P, Van Praet C, Villeirs G. How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1. Acta Radiol. 2021 Jun;62(6):839-847. doi: 10.1177/0284185120941831. Epub 2020 Jul 23. PMID: 32702998.