Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists
Top Cited Papers
- 1 September 2016
- journal article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 280 (3), 793-804
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542
Abstract
Purpose To determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 lexicon. Materials and Methods This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was institutional review board–approved. Six radiologists from six separate institutions, all experienced in prostate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, assessed prostate MR imaging examinations performed at a single center by using the PI-RADS lexicon. Readers were provided screen captures that denoted the location of one specific lesion per case. Analysis entailed two sessions (40 and 80 examinations per session) and an intersession training period for individualized feedback and group discussion. Percent agreement (fraction of pairwise reader combinations with concordant readings) was compared between sessions. κ coefficients were computed. Results No substantial difference in interobserver agreement was observed between sessions, and the sessions were subsequently pooled. Agreement for PI-RADS score of 4 or greater was 0.593 in peripheral zone (PZ) and 0.509 in transition zone (TZ). In PZ, reproducibility was moderate to substantial for features related to diffusion-weighted imaging (κ = 0.535–0.619); fair to moderate for features related to dynamic contrast material–enhanced (DCE) imaging (κ = 0.266–0.439); and fair for definite extraprostatic extension on T2-weighted images (κ = 0.289). In TZ, reproducibility for features related to lesion texture and margins on T2-weighted images ranged from 0.136 (moderately hypointense) to 0.529 (encapsulation). Among 63 lesions that underwent targeted biopsy, classification as PI-RADS score of 4 or greater by a majority of readers yielded tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater in 45.9% (17 of 37), without missing any tumor with a Gleason score of 3+4 or greater. Conclusion Experienced radiologists achieved moderate reproducibility for PI-RADS version 2, and neither required nor benefitted from a training session. Agreement tended to be better in PZ than TZ, although was weak for DCE in PZ. The findings may help guide future PI-RADS lexicon updates. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Using multiparametric MRI to ‘personalize’ biopsy for menCurrent Opinion in Urology, 2015
- Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: Assessment at an optimal thresholdJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2015
- PI-RADS version 2: what you need to knowClinical Radiology, 2015
- Multiattribute probabilistic prostate elastic registration (MAPPER): Application to fusion of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imagingMedical Physics, 2015
- Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standardEuropean Radiology, 2013
- Characterization of thyroid nodules using the proposed thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI‐RADS)Head & Neck, 2012
- ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012European Radiology, 2012
- Consensus Criteria for the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer: Not Ready for Routine UseEuropean Urology, 2011
- BI-RADS Lexicon for US and Mammography: Interobserver Variability and Positive Predictive ValueRadiology, 2006
- Behavior and interpretation of the κ statistic: Resolution of the two paradoxesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996