Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Consistency of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2: A Study on Six Prostate Radiologists with Different Experiences from Half a Year to 17 Years

Perspectives on technology: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability

OBJECTIVES

To explore the topic of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability, including a discussion of major sources, mitigation approaches, and future directions.

METHODS

A narrative review of PI-RADS interobserver variability.

RESULTS

PI-RADS was developed in 2012 to set technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reduce interobserver variability at interpretation, and improve diagnostic accuracy in the MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. While PI-RADS has been validated in selected research cohorts with prostate cancer imaging experts, subsequent prospective studies in routine clinical practice demonstrate wide variability in diagnostic performance. Radiologist and biopsy operator experience are the most important contributing drivers of high-quality care among multiple interrelated factors including variability in MRI hardware and technique, image quality, and population and patient-specific factors such as prostate cancer disease prevalence. Iterative improvements in PI-RADS have helped flatten the curve for novice readers and reduce variability. Innovations in image quality reporting, administrative and organisational workflows, and artificial intelligence hold promise in improving variability even further.

CONCLUSION

Continued research into PI-RADS is needed to facilitate benchmark creation, reader certification, and independent accreditation, which are systems-level interventions needed to uphold and maintain high-quality prostate MRI across entire populations.

Value of synthetic MRI quantitative parameters in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate

BACKGROUND

Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion-guided biopsy has a high clinical application value. However, this technique has some limitations, which limit its use in routine clinical practice. Therefore, the selection of suitable proatate lesions for this technique is worthy of our attention. Synthetic MRI (SyMRI) is capable of quantifying multiple relaxation parameters, which might have potential value in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. The aim of our study is to examine the value of SyMRI quantitative parameters in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate.

METHODS

We prospectively selected 148 lesions in 137 patients who underwent prostate biopsy in our hospital. Next, 2-4 needles of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy combined with 10 needles of system biopsy (SB) were used as the protocol for prostate biopsy. Before biopsy, the MAGiC sequences of the MRI images of the enrolled patients underwent post-processing, and the longitudinal relaxation time (T1), transverse relaxation time (T2), and proton density (PD) were extracted. The biopsy pathology results were used as a gold standard to compare the differences in SyMRI quantitative parameters between benign and malignant prostate lesions in the peripheral and transitional zones. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to confirm the optimal SyMRI quantitative parameter for prostate lesion benignancy/malignancy performance, and the cutoff values of these parameters were used for grouping the lesions. The single-needle biopsy prostate cancer (PCa)-positivity rates (number of positive biopsy needles/total biopsy needles) and PCa overall detection rates by TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy and SB were compared in different subgroups.

RESULTS

The T1 and T2 values can determine the benignancy/malignancy of prostate transition lesions(p < 0.01), and the T2 value has a greater diagnostic performance (p = 0.0376). The T2 value can determine the benignancy/malignancy of prostate peripheral lesions. The optimal diagnostic cutoff values for T2 were 77 and 81 ms, respectively. The single-needle PCa positivity rate of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy was higher than SB for any prostate lesions in different subgroups (p < 0.01). However, only in the subgroup of transition zone lesions with T2 ≤ 77 ms, the PCa overall detection rate of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy was significantly higher than that of SB (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

SyMRI-T2 value can provide a theoretical basis for the selection of suitable lesions for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced a number of key changes to the assessment of transition zone (TZ) lesions. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting TZ prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) by use of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 among radiologists with different levels of experience. METHODS. This retrospective study included 355 biopsy-naïve patients who from January 2017 to March 2020 underwent prostate MRI that showed a TZ lesion and underwent subsequent biopsy. PCa was diagnosed in 93 patients (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group 1, n = 34; ISUP grade group ≥ 2, n = 59) and non-cancerous lesions in 262 patients. Five radiologists with varying experience in prostate MRI scored lesions using PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 in sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with kappa and Kendall W statistics. ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate performance in detection of TZ PCa and csPCa. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement among all readers was higher for PI-RADS v2.1 than for PI-RADS v2 (mean weighted κ = 0.700 vs 0.622; Kendall W = 0.805 vs 0.728; p = .03). The pooled AUC values for detecting TZ PCa and csPCa were higher among all readers using PI-RADS v2.1 (0.866 vs 0.827 for TZ PCa; 0.929 vs 0.899 for TZ csPCa; p < .001). For detecting TZ PCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.9%, 79.4%, and 75.4% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 79.4%, 71.8%, and 73.8% for PI-RADS v2. For detecting TZ csPCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.8%, 90.9%, and 89.9% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 81.4%, 89.9%, and 88.5% for PI-RADS v2. Reader 1, who had the least experience, had the lowest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (78.0%, 89.2%, and 87.3%). Reader 5, who had the most experience, had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (88.1%, 92.9%, and 92.1%) in detecting csPCa. CONCLUSION. PI-RADS v2.1 had better interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy than PI-RADS v2 for evaluating TZ lesions. Reader experience continues to affect the performance of prostate MRI interpretation with PI-RADS v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. PI-RADS v2.1 is more accurate and reproducible than PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of TZ PCa.

Interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS–v2)

Background

A retrospective study was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) with a mean age of 56 years and underwent mp-MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla MRI. Two readers recognized all prostatic lesions, and each lesion had a score according to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS-v2).

Purpose of the study

To evaluate the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in characterization of prostatic lesions using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) at 3 Tesla MRI.

Results

The overall interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 for both zones was excellent (k = 0.81, percent agreement = 94.9%). In the peripheral zone (PZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS II (k = 0.78, percent agreement = 83.9%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.66, percent agreement = 91.3 %), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.69, percent agreement = 93.5%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.91, percent agreement = 95.7 %). In the transitional zone (TZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS I (k = 0.98, percent of agreement = 96%), PI-RADS II (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 96%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 88%), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.83, percent agreement = 96%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.82, percent agreement = 92%).

Conclusion

We concluded that PI-RADS-v2 is a reliable and a reproducible imaging modality for the characterization of prostatic lesions and detection of PCa.

PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study

PURPOSE

The studies comparing the versions 2 vs. 2.1 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) are rare. This study aimed to evaluate whether PI-RADS version 2.1 is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer in comparison with PI-RADS version 2.

METHODS

This was a diagnostic study of patients with prostate diseases who visited the Urology Department of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination between 03-01-2016 and 10-31-2018. The images originally analyzed using PI-RADS version 2 were retrospectively re-analyzed and scored in 2019 according to the updated PI-RADS version 2.1. The kappa and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used.

RESULTS

For Reader 1, compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (85% vs. 79%, P = 0.03), lower specificity (65% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), and lower area under the curve (AUC) (0.749 vs. 0.809, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (first attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had lower specificity (67% vs. 91%, P < 0.001) and lower AUC (0.702 vs. 0.844, P < 0.001). For Reader 2 (second attempt), compared with PI-RADS version 2, version 2.1 had higher sensitivity (88% vs. 78%, P < 0.001) and lower specificity (77% vs. 91%, P < 0.001). The kappa between the two attempts for Reader 2 was 0.321.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that PI-RADS version 2.1 might improve the detection of prostate cancers in the transition zone compared with PI-RADS version 2 but that it might results in higher numbers of biopsies because of lower specificity.

What You Need to Know Before Reading Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become the main imaging modality for the detection, localization, and local staging of prostate cancer over the past decade. For radiologists to achieve consistent and reproducible reporting of prostate mpMRI, a comprehensive evaluation of the gland including detailed knowledge of anatomy, pathology, and clinical data is required. This article familiarizes radiologists with common pitfalls and conditions that affect mpMRI performance during readouts. CONCLUSION. Consistent, accurate, and reproducible reporting of prostate mpMRI is vital. Additionally, radiologists should be aware of common diagnostic pitfalls that can hinder mpMRI performance.

Low PI-RADS assessment category excludes extraprostatic extension (≥pT3a) of prostate cancer: a histology-validated study including 301 operated patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether low PI-RADS v2 assessment categories are effective at excluding extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer (≥pT3a PCa).

METHODS

The local institutional ethics committee approved this retrospective analysis of 301 consecutive PCa patients. Patients were classified as low- or intermediate/high-risk based on clinical parameters and underwent pre-surgical multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. A PI-RADS v2 assessment category and ESUR EPE score were assigned for each lesion by two readers working in consensus. Histopathologic analysis of the whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimen was the reference standard. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association of PI-RADS v2 assessment category with final histology ≥pT3a PCa.

RESULTS

For a PI-RADS v2 assessment category threshold of 3, the overall performance for ruling out (sensitivity, negative predictive value, negative likelihood ratio) ≥pT3a PCa was 99%/98%/0.04 and was similar in both the low-risk (96%/97%/0.12; N = 137) and the intermediate/high-risk groups (100%/100%/0.0; N = 164). In univariate analysis, all clinical and tumor characteristics except age were significantly associated with ≥pT3a PCa. In multivariate analysis, PI-RADS v2 assessment categories ≤ 3 had a protective effect relative to categories 4 and 5. The inclusion of ESUR EPE score improved the AUC of ≥pT3a PCa prediction (from 0.73 to 0.86, p = 0.04 in the overall cohort). The impact of PI-RADS v2 assessment category is reflected in a nomogram derived on the basis of our cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, low PI-RADS v2 assessment categories of 3 or less confidently ruled out the presence of ≥pT3a PCa irrespective of clinical risk group.

KEY POINTS

• Our analysis of 301 mp-MRI and RARP specimens showed that the addition of PI-RADS v2 assessment categories to clinical parameters improves the exclusion of ≥pT3a (extraprostatic) prostate cancer. • PI-RADS v2 assessment categories of 1 to 3 are useful for excluding ≥pT3a prostate cancer with a NPV of 98%; such patients can be considered as candidates for less invasive approaches. • The ability to exclude ≥pT3a prostate cancer may improve confidence in choosing nerve-sparing surgery or in avoiding pelvic nodal dissections, and similarly for patients undergoing radiotherapy, in adopting short-course adjuvant hormonal therapy or foregoing prophylactic nodal irradiation.