Comparison of PI-RADS and LIKERT scoring systems in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and the contribution of radiologist experience

被引:0
|
作者
Topaloglu, Ali Can [1 ]
Akkaya, Hueseyin [2 ]
Kaya, Oemer [3 ]
Ipek, Goekhan [4 ]
Dilek, Okan [4 ]
Oezdemir, Selim [5 ]
Gulek, Bozkurt [4 ]
Soeker, Goekhan [4 ]
机构
[1] Sanliurfa Training & Res Hosp, Sanliurfa, Turkiye
[2] Ondokuz Mayis Univ, Samsun, Turkiye
[3] Cukurova Univ, Adana, Turkiye
[4] Univ Hlth Sci, Adana, Turkiye
[5] Osmaniye State Hosp, Osmaniye, Turkiye
来源
CUKUROVA MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2025年 / 50卷 / 01期
关键词
Prostate cancer; PI-RADS v2.1; LIKERT; Multiparametric MRI; PSA; VALIDATION; V2;
D O I
10.17826/cumj.1608411
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the concordance of these two scoring systems with histopathological data and the relationship between this concordance and radiologist experience. Materials and Methods: A total of 347 patients who underwent multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) with a preliminary diagnosis of prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The assessors independently scored the images according to PI-RADS v2.1. Two weeks later, they independently scored the images using the LIKERT system while blinded to their previous PI-RADS v2.1 scores. The study investigated the correlation of these scores with the pathology results and the inter-reader agreement. Results: The mean age of the patients was 65.5 +/- 7.7 years. In the kappa analysis, which evaluated the concordance of both scoring systems with the reference standard pathology, it was observed that concordance increased with radiologist experience. For the entire gland, the kappa values for readers 1, 2, 3, and 4 with PI-RADS v2.1 were found to be 0.669, 0.669, 0.711, and 0.771, respectively, and with the LIKERT system, they were 0.589, 0.669, 0.701, and 0.771, respectively. The AUC values were 0.901 (0.893-0.921) for PI-RADS and 0.895 (0.871-0.922) for LIKERT. Conclusion: The PI-RADS v2.1 and LIKERT scoring systems provided similar inter-reader agreement in evaluating mpMRI. Among less experienced radiologists, PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrated higher concordance with pathology, whereas no difference was observed between more experienced radiologists.
引用
收藏
页码:106 / 114
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Khoo, Christopher C.
    Eldred-Evans, David
    Peters, Max
    Tanaka, Mariana Bertoncelli
    Noureldin, Mohamed
    Miah, Saiful
    Shah, Taimur
    Connor, Martin J.
    Reddy, Deepika
    Clark, Martin
    Lakhani, Amish
    Rockall, Andrea
    Hosking-Jervis, Feargus
    Cullen, Emma
    Arya, Manit
    Hrouda, David
    Qazi, Hasan
    Winkler, Mathias
    Tam, Henry
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (01) : 49 - 55
  • [2] Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Kido, Ayumu
    Takeuchi, Mitsuru
    Yamamoto, Akira
    Miyaji, Yoshiyuki
    Kanomata, Naoki
    Sone, Teruki
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 121
  • [3] Correlation between Intraprostatic PSMA Uptake and MRI PI-RADS of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2.0 and PI-RADS Version 2.1
    Zhao, Jing
    Mangarova, Dilyana B.
    Brangsch, Julia
    Kader, Avan
    Hamm, Bernd
    Brenner, Winfried
    Makowski, Marcus R.
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (12) : 1 - 13
  • [4] PI-RADS: multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer
    Aileen O’Shea
    Mukesh Harisinghani
    Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 2022, 35 : 523 - 532
  • [5] PI-RADS: multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer
    O'Shea, Aileen
    Harisinghani, Mukesh
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE MATERIALS IN PHYSICS BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2022, 35 (04) : 523 - 532
  • [6] Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
    He, Ying
    Cong, Ruochen
    Zhou, Jie
    Xu, Zhenyu
    Yang, Jushun
    Wang, Lin
    Xiao, Jing
    He, Bosheng
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2021, 18 (01) : 51 - 57
  • [7] Evaluation of the PI-RADS Scoring System for Classifying mpMRI Findings in Men with Suspicion of Prostate Cancer
    Junker, Daniel
    Schaefer, Georg
    Edlinger, Michael
    Kremser, Christian
    Bektic, Jasmin
    Horninger, Wolfgang
    Jaschke, Werner
    Aigner, Friedrich
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 2013
  • [8] Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement
    Hotker, Andreas M.
    Bluthgen, Christian
    Rupp, Niels J.
    Schneider, Aurelia F.
    Eberli, Daniel
    Donati, Olivio F.
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (10):
  • [9] Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection
    Walker, Stephanie M.
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Harmon, Stephanie A.
    Sanford, Thomas
    Merino, Maria J.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Shih, Joanna H.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2020, 215 (05) : 1098 - 1103
  • [10] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Nayana U. Patel
    Kimberly E. Lind
    Kavita Garg
    David Crawford
    Priya N. Werahera
    Sajal S. Pokharel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 705 - 712