Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer

被引：19

作者：

Xu, Lili ^{[1
]}

Zhang, Gumuyang ^{[1
]}

Zhang, Daming ^{[1
]}

Zhang, Xiaoxiao ^{[1
]}

Bai, Xin ^{[1
]}

Yan, Weigang ^{[2
]}

Zhou, Yi ^{[2
]}

Zhou, Zhien ^{[2
]}

Xiao, Yu ^{[3
]}

Jin, Zhengyu ^{[1
]}

Sun, Hao ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Dept Radiol, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Peking Union Med Coll, 1 Shuaifuyuan,Wangfujing St, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China

[2] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Dept Urol, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Peking Union Med Coll, 1 Shuaifuyuan,Wangfujing St, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China

[3] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Dept Pathol, Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Peking Union Med Coll, 1 Shuaifuyuan,Wangfujing St, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China

来源：

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY | 2020年 / 45卷 / 12期

基金：

中国国家自然科学基金;

关键词：

Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms; Neoplasm grading; Prostate imaging reporting and data system; DATA SYSTEM; STATISTICS; GUIDELINES; AGREEMENT; MRI;

D O I：

10.1007/s00261-020-02738-6

中图分类号：

R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];

学科分类号：

1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;

摘要：

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and PI-RADS v2 for transition zone prostate cancer (TZPC), and analyse its performance for readers with different experience levels. Methods Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer who underwent biopsy after MRI scan between January and December 2017 were retrospectively enrolled. One junior radiologist (reader 1, 1 year of experience in using PI-RADS v2) and one senior radiologist (reader 2, 6 years of experience) independently reviewed and assigned a score for each lesion according to PI-RADS v2.1 and v2. The template-guided transperineal prostate biopsy was used for standard of reference. To compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods, the AUC was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated at predefined positive values (PI-RADS >= 3). The interreader agreement and frequency of prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category were also calculated. Results Among the 85 patients, 27 had prostate cancers, and 25 were clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The AUC values for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer significantly increased with PI-RADS v2.1 for reader 2 (0.766 vs. 0.902,P = 0.009). The specificity and accuracy for both readers also increased with PI-RADS v2.1 (specificity: reader 1, 41.7% vs. 78.3% and reader 2, 33.3% vs. 81.7%; accuracy: reader 1, 52.9% vs. 76.5% and reader 2, 48.2% vs. 83.5%, allP < 0.05). The interreader agreement was good for both versions. The percentage of prostate cancer decreased in lower PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 2) and increased in higher PI-RADS categories (PI-RADS 3 similar to 4). Conclusion Compared with PI-RADS v2, PI-RADS v2.1 may improve radiologists' diagnostic performance for TZPC.

引用

页码：4133 / 4141

页数：9

共 25 条

[11] EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent [J].