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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hötker, Andreas M., Blüthgen, Christian, Rupp, Niels J., Schneider, Aurelia F., Eberli, Daniel, Donati, Olivio F.
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
_version_ 1783590401015283712
author Hötker, Andreas M.
Blüthgen, Christian
Rupp, Niels J.
Schneider, Aurelia F.
Eberli, Daniel
Donati, Olivio F.
author_facet Hötker, Andreas M.
Blüthgen, Christian
Rupp, Niels J.
Schneider, Aurelia F.
Eberli, Daniel
Donati, Olivio F.
author_sort Hötker, Andreas M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7535021
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75350212020-10-15 Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement Hötker, Andreas M. Blüthgen, Christian Rupp, Niels J. Schneider, Aurelia F. Eberli, Daniel Donati, Olivio F. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2020-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7535021/ /pubmed/33017413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239975 Text en © 2020 Hötker et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hötker, Andreas M.
Blüthgen, Christian
Rupp, Niels J.
Schneider, Aurelia F.
Eberli, Daniel
Donati, Olivio F.
Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title_full Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title_fullStr Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title_short Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
title_sort comparison of the pi-rads 2.1 scoring system to pi-rads 2.0: impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
topic Research Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT hotkerandreasm comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement
AT bluthgenchristian comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement
AT ruppnielsj comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement
AT schneideraureliaf comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement
AT eberlidaniel comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement
AT donatioliviof comparisonofthepirads21scoringsystemtopirads20impactondiagnosticaccuracyandinterreaderagreement