Cargando…
Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
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 multi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7535021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33017413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239975 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|