Evaluating the performance of clinical and radiological data in predicting prostate cancer in prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 category 3 lesions of the peripheral and the transition zones

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina Gaudiano ◽  
Lorenzo Bianchi ◽  
Beniamino Corcioni ◽  
Francesca Giunchi ◽  
Riccardo Schiavina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Data System ◽  
Transition Zones ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Radiological Data

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 20201434
Author(s):  
Yasuyo Urase ◽  
Yoshiko Ueno ◽  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Keitaro Sofue ◽  
Satoru Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Data System ◽  
Transition Zones ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
3.0 T ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Interreader Agreement

Objectives: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1, in comparison with v2. Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v2.1 and v2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. Results 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cutoff ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v2.1 than v2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cutoff ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v2.1 than v2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v2.1 was higher than with v2 (TZ, 0.826–0.907 vs 0.788–0.856; PZ, 0.857–0.919 vs 0.853–0.902). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v2. Advances in knowledge: PI-RADS v2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 200 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian L. Hofbauer ◽  
Andreas Maxeiner ◽  
Beatrice Kittner ◽  
Robin Heckmann ◽  
Maximillian Reimann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Imaging

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, Assessment Categories and Pathologic Outcomes in Patients With Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Biopsy

2017 ◽  
Vol 208 (5) ◽  
pp. 1037-1044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Lim ◽  
Matthew D. F. McInnes ◽  
Trevor A. Flood ◽  
Rodney H. Breau ◽  
Christopher Morash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Imaging
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document