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
  • [31] Characterizing indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone prostate lesions with PSA density, PI-RADS scoring and qualitative descriptors on multiparametric MRI
    Appayya, Mrishta Brizmohun
    Sidhu, Harbir S.
    Dikaios, Nikolaos
    Johnston, Edward W.
    Simons, Lucy A. M.
    Freeman, Alex
    Kirkham, Alexander P. S.
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    Punwani, Shonit
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 91 (1083)
  • [32] Contribution of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion MRI to PI-RADS for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Tavakoli, Anoshirwan Andrej
    Hielscher, Thomas
    Badura, Patrick
    Goertz, Magdalena
    Kuder, Tristan Anselm
    Gnirs, Regula
    Schwab, Constantin
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Bonekamp, David
    RADIOLOGY, 2023, 306 (01) : 186 - 199
  • [33] Use of Radiomics to Improve Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in Prostate Cancer
    Li, Mou
    Yang, Ling
    Yue, Yufeng
    Xu, Jingxu
    Huang, Chencui
    Song, Bin
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 10
  • [34] Multi-parametric MRI and PI-RADS (V1) scoring system: New inception in cancer prostate diagnosis to evaluate diagnostic performance of different score combinations
    Afifi, Ahmad Hafez
    Ramadan, Adel Ali
    Alabbady, Ahmad
    Khalifa, Mohamad Hossam Aldin
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2016, 47 (03) : 1083 - 1094
  • [35] Molecular and diffusion features for identification of clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions
    Ajami, Tarek
    Han, Sunwoo
    Porto, Joao G.
    Kimbel, Isabella
    Szczotka, Zoe
    Guerard, Timothy
    VanderVeer-Harris, Nathan
    Ledesma, Braian R.
    Acosta, Patricia Castillo
    Kryvenko, Oleksandr N.
    Parekh, Dipen J.
    Stoyanova, Radka
    Reis, Isildinha M.
    Punnen, Sanoj
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 42 (11) : 370e9 - 370e14
  • [36] The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI-RADS™ for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction
    Distler, Florian A.
    Radtke, Jan P.
    Bonekamp, David
    Kesch, Claudia
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Wieczorek, Kathrin
    Kirchner, Marietta
    Pahernik, Sascha
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Hadaschikk, Boris A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 198 (03) : 575 - 582
  • [37] Index lesion detection in multifocal prostate cancer: Simplified PI-RADS biparametric MRI vs PI-RADS v2.1 multiparametric MRI
    Scialpi, Michele
    Martorana, Eugenio
    Torre, Riccardo
    Scalera, Giovanni Battista
    Belatti, Eugenio
    Improta, Antonio
    Aisa, Maria Cristina
    Burani, Aldo
    Santini, Nicola
    D'Andrea, Alfredo
    Mancioli, Francesco Maria
    Scialpi, Pietro
    Di Blasi, Aldo
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2023, 94 : 108 - 115
  • [38] Machine learning-based analysis of a semi-automated PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for prostate cancer
    Singh, Dharmesh
    Kumar, Virendra
    Das, Chandan J.
    Singh, Anup
    Mehndiratta, Amit
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [39] MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Quentin, Michael
    Arsov, Christian
    Hiester, Andreas
    Buchbender, Christian
    Rabenalt, Robert
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Blondin, Dirk
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (10) : 2582 - 2589
  • [40] Comparison of the Utility of PI-RADS 2.1, ADC Values, and Combined Use of Both, for the Diagnosis of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers
    Liu, Xinghua
    Xiong, Qiuxia
    Zeng, Wenbing
    Yang, Ran
    Wen, Yun
    Li, Xiang
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2024, 48 (02) : 206 - 211