INTER-OBSERVER AGREEMENT OF PI-RADS SCORE VERSION 2 FOR PROSTATE CANCER

Authors

  • Chatwadee Limpaiboon Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University
  • Nisachon Chatangam Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital The Thai Red Cross Society
  • Pattarin Burapasomboon Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital The Thai Red Cross Society
  • Kewalee Sasiwimonphan Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital The Thai Red Cross Society

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55374/jseamed.v1i2.28

Keywords:

Prostate cancer, Prostate MRI, PI-RADS, version 2, Gleason score

Abstract

Objective:To assess the inter-observer agreement with the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 for detection of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a tissue diagnosis patient population. Material and Method:This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee. Fifty-six lesions in 37 patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy or prostatectomy with multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate suspicious lesions detected at multiparametric MR imaging were scored by four readers of varying experience who were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly revised PI-RADS and the scoring system version 2. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated by using the Intra-Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results: Inter-observer agreement of four observers using the PI-RADS v2 for prostate cancer was an intermediate to good agreement beyond chance; ICC = 0.736, (95% CI: 0.565, 0.851). All observers, there was a most correlated PI-RADS assessment between observer 1 and observer 2 r = 0.758 (p<0.001). Conclusion: PI-RADS score version 2 shows intermediate to good agreement in readers of varying experience.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. Available via http://globocan.iarc.fr

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–757. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y

American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), Breast Imaging Atlas, 4th edition American College of Radiology (ACR) 2003, Reston.

Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Lanzman RS, Hiester A, Rabenalt R et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. European Radiology 2013;23:3185–3190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2922-y

Mistry K, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:95–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.16.2.95

Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008;53:68–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002

Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localization and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009

Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, Kessler TM, Sulser T, Weishaupt D et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Eur Urol 2009;55:575–590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.10.019

Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice. MAGMA 2008;21:379–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-008-0138-y

Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW et al. Prostate cancer: multi- parametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822

Portalez D, Rollin G, Leandri, Elman B, Mouly P, Jonca F et al. Prospective comparison of T2w- MRI and dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI, 3D-MR spectroscopic imaging or diffusion-weighted MRI in repeat TRUS- guided biopsies. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2781–2790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1868-6

Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007;243:28–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431030580

Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franeil T, PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Rofo. 2013;185:253-261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1330270

Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 2011;259:162–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101251

Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2- weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:625–631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22075

Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Veltman J, Huisman HJ, Vos P et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast- enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006;241:449–458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412051866

Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S. Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion- weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:146–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20793

Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(4):W612–W618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10173

ACR, ESUR, AdMeTech Foundation. Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System: Version 2. 2014. Available at:14/4/2015, http://www.acr.org/w/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf [accessed 14.04.15].

Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H. Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2010;20:995–1002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1625-x

Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Bipat S, Nio CY, Bollen TL, Kardux JJ et al. Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy. Radiology2012;264:455–463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111896

Downloads

Published

2017-12-26

How to Cite

1.
Limpaiboon C, Chatangam N, Burapasomboon P, Sasiwimonphan K. INTER-OBSERVER AGREEMENT OF PI-RADS SCORE VERSION 2 FOR PROSTATE CANCER. J Southeast Asian Med Res [Internet]. 2017 Dec. 26 [cited 2024 Apr. 17];1(2):63-9. Available from: https://jseamed.org/index.php/jseamed/article/view/28

Issue

Section

Original Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.