Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.
- Hötker AM Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Blüthgen C Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Rupp NJ Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Schneider AF Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Eberli D Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Donati OF Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- 2020-10-05
Published in:
- PloS one. - 2020
Area Under Curve
Databases, Factual
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Image-Guided Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
ROC Curve
Retrospective Studies
English
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.
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.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- gold
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0239975
- PMID 33017413
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/127590
Export to…
Statistics
Document views: 85
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0