<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Hötker AM</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Blüthgen C</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rupp NJ</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Schneider AF</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Eberli D</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Donati OF</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">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 &gt; 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.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://sonar.ch/global/documents/127590</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0239975</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/33017413</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>PloS one. - 2020</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Area Under Curve</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Databases, Factual</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">Humans</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Image-Guided Biopsy</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns6="xml" ns6:lang="en">Magnetic Resonance Imaging</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns7="xml" ns7:lang="en">Male</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns8="xml" ns8:lang="en">Prostate</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns9="xml" ns9:lang="en">Prostatic Neoplasms</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns10="xml" ns10:lang="en">ROC Curve</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns11="xml" ns11:lang="en">Retrospective Studies</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns12="xml" ns12:lang="en">Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>