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
  • [21] PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study
    Zhibing Wang
    Wenlu Zhao
    Junkang Shen
    Zhen Jiang
    Shuo Yang
    Shuangxiu Tan
    Yueyue Zhang
    Abdominal Radiology, 2020, 45 : 4142 - 4149
  • [22] Efficacy of PI-RADS in prebiopsy prostate-MRI at a urological cancer centre: a comparison with histology
    MD Patel
    B Rangarajan
    Cancer Imaging, 15 (Suppl 1)
  • [23] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Kasel-Seibert, Moritz
    Lehmann, Thomas
    Aschenbach, Rene
    Guettler, Felix V.
    Abubrig, Mohamed
    Grimm, Marc-Oliver
    Teichgraeber, Ulf
    Franiel, Tobias
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (04) : 726 - 731
  • [24] Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI diagnosis strategy for prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using PI-RADS version 2.1
    Zhang, Jiahui
    Xu, Lili
    Zhang, Gumuyang
    Zhang, Xiaoxiao
    Bai, Xin
    Ji, Zhigang
    Xiao, Yu
    Sun, Hao
    Jin, Zhengyu
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (08) : 2905 - 2916
  • [25] Urine biomarkers can predict prostate cancer and PI-RADS score prior to biopsy
    Pavlovic, Blaz
    Braeutigam, Konstantin
    Dartiguenave, Florence
    Martel, Paul
    Rakauskas, Arnas
    Cesson, Valerie
    Veit, Markus
    Oechslin, Pascal
    Gu, Alexander
    Hermanns, Thomas
    Saba, Karim
    Poyet, Cedric
    Hoetker, Andreas M.
    Rupp, Niels J.
    Valerio, Massimo
    Derre, Laurent
    Eberli, Daniel
    Banzola, Irina
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [26] Comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI diagnosis strategy for prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using PI-RADS version 2.1
    Jiahui Zhang
    Lili Xu
    Gumuyang Zhang
    Xiaoxiao Zhang
    Xin Bai
    Zhigang Ji
    Yu Xiao
    Hao Sun
    Zhengyu Jin
    Abdominal Radiology, 2022, 47 : 2905 - 2916
  • [27] Nomograms Combining PHI and PI-RADS in Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Study
    Zhou, Yongheng
    Fu, Qiang
    Shao, Zhiqiang
    Zhang, Keqin
    Qi, Wenqiang
    Geng, Shangzhen
    Wang, Wenfu
    Cui, Jianfeng
    Jiang, Xin
    Li, Rongyang
    Zhu, Yaofeng
    Chen, Shouzhen
    Shi, Benkang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [28] Exploration of the diagnostic capacity of PSAMR combined with PI-RADS scoring for clinically significant prostate cancer and establishment and validation of the Nomogram prediction model
    Dengke Li
    Lulu Zhang
    Yujie Xu
    Xun Wu
    Shaokui Hua
    Yan Jiang
    Qunlian Huang
    Yukui Gao
    Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 2023, 149 : 11309 - 11317
  • [29] Exploration of the diagnostic capacity of PSAMR combined with PI-RADS scoring for clinically significant prostate cancer and establishment and validation of the Nomogram prediction model
    Li, Dengke
    Zhang, Lulu
    Xu, Yujie
    Wu, Xun
    Hua, Shaokui
    Jiang, Yan
    Huang, Qunlian
    Gao, Yukui
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 149 (13) : 11309 - 11317
  • [30] Considering Predictive Factors in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PI-RADS 3 Lesions
    Natale, Caleb
    Koller, Christopher R.
    Greenberg, Jacob W.
    Pincus, Joshua
    Krane, Louis S.
    LIFE-BASEL, 2021, 11 (12):