Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1.

Eur J Radiol

Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna (AKH), Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria; Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University Vienna (AKH), Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria. Electronic address:

Published: June 2016

Purpose: To compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2 (v2) and version 1 (v1) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric MRI.

Methods: This IRB-approved retrospective study included 65 consecutive biopsy-naïve or biopsy-negative patients suspicious for PCa (mean age: 65 years, mean PSA: 10.8ng/ml) who were undergoing MR-guided biopsy after multiparametric 3T prostate MRI (T2w, DWI, DCE). Two independent readers (R1; R2) scored the prostate lesions according to the v2 score and the v1 sum score. Diagnostic measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC-curve) were compared for all cases and stratified by location (transitional zone, TZ, peripheral zone, PZ). Inter-reader agreement was assessed by kappa statistics.

Results: Inter reader agreement for v2 and v1 was substantial to almost perfect (kappa v2: 0.71, v1: 0.81). Overall, sensitivity between both readers and methods did not differ (p>0.05). Overall specificity was higher using v1 compared to v2 (R1: p=0.0078, R2: p=0.0313) In the TZ, v2 showed a higher AUC (0.81-0.84) compared to v1 (AUC 0.77-0.78). Here, the sensitivity of v2 (87.5-100%) was higher than that of v1 (75%) while v2 specificity (50%-56.3%) was lower than that of v1 (68.8-75%). In the PZ, AUCs were higher using v1 (AUC 0.82-0.83) compared to v2 (AUC 0.61-0.63). The specificity for v1 was higher (43.8-62.3%) than that for v2 (12.5-18.8%) while both v2 and v1 achieved 100% sensitivity.

Conclusion: PI-RADS v2 and v1 inter-reader agreement is excellent, but their diagnostic performance differs. While v2 appears to be the preferable method for the evaluation of TZ lesions, v1 performs better in the PZ.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic performance
8
inter-reader agreement
8
specificity higher
8
higher auc
8
compared auc
8
higher
5
head-to-head comparison
4
pi-rads
4
comparison pi-rads
4
pi-rads pi-rads
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!