Accuracy and Interobserver Variability in Reporting of PI-RADS Version 2

Flood, Thomas; Pokharel, Sajal S.; Patel, Nayana; Clark, Toshimasa J.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.012

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We evaluated the variability among radiologists of varying experience levels for reporting lesion locations on this map. There was good agreement for detecting index lesions using screen shots, which is in line with previously published studies on PI‐RADSv2 . However, by introducing the sector map, agreement in lesion detection decreased significantly, even when allowing for generous overlap in lesion outlines between readers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI‐RADSv2 sector map

Greer

Shih

Barrett

et al. 2018

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI‐RADSv2 sector map

Greer

Shih

Barrett

et al. 2018

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pereira et al 17 also reported a high IRA (κ = 0.91). The IRA of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in all studies was greater than that of other standardized reporting systems, including the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate MRI, 28,29 and the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for screening mammograms. 30 These findings indicate that the ADNEX MR Scoring system is feasible for clinical implementation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Validity and Reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses

Basha

Abdel-Rahman

Metwally

et al. 2020

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses (AM) signifies a major challenge in clinical practice. Early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging evaluation before treatment. Purpose: To assess the validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. Study Type: A prospective multicenter study. Population: In all, 531 women (mean age, 44 AE 11.2 years; range, 21-79 years) with 572 sonographically indeterminate AM. Field Strength/Sequence: 1.5T/precontrast T 1-weighted imaging (WI) fast spin echo (FSE) (in-phase and out-of-phase, with and without fat suppression); T 2-WI FSE; diffusion-WI single-shot echo planner with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm 2 ; and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion T 1-WI liver acquisition with volume acceleration (LAVA). Assessment: All MRI examinations were evaluated by three radiologists, and the AM were categorized into five scores based on the ADNEX MR Scoring system. Score 1: no AM; 2: benign AM; 3: probably benign AM; 4: indeterminate AM; 5: probably malignant AM. Histopathology and imaging follow-up were used as the standard references for evaluating the validity of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for detecting ovarian malignancy. Statistical Tests: Four-fold table test, kappa statistics (κ), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: In all, 136 (23.8%) AM were malignant, and 436 (76.2%) were benign. Of the 350 AM classified as score 2, one (0.3%) was malignant; of the 62 AM classified as score 3, six (9.7%) were malignant; of the 73 AM classified as score 4, 43 (58.9%) were malignant; and of the 87 AM categorized as score 5, 86 (98.9%) were malignant. The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AM was score >3 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 94.9%, respectively. The interreader agreement of the ADNEX MR Scoring was very good (κ = 0.861).

show abstract

“…One study reported that good interobserver agreement rates use the most appropriate analysis (AC1 = 0.71) and moderate use kappa analysis (kappa = 0.43) [17]. Few studies reported good interobserver agreement using PI-RADS V2 with a remarkable effect on the radiologist's prior experience [19][20][21][22][23][24]. In our work, we found an excellent interobserver agreement using PI-RADS-v2 in reporting MP-MRI for prostate lesions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…It also develops assessment groups that summarize ranks of the risk that could be helpful to choose and prepare patients for the next steps in management and finally enhance interdisciplinary communications with physicians [6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Having both targeted and systematic biopsy could offer the peak discovery of clinically significant prostate cancer [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Numerous MRI-guided sampling procedures will enhance the recognition of clinically significant PCa as well as decrease the discovery of insignificant cancer decreasing the unnecessary costly treatments and their possible complications [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous MRI-guided sampling procedures will enhance the recognition of clinically significant PCa as well as decrease the discovery of insignificant cancer decreasing the unnecessary costly treatments and their possible complications [27]. Many studies discussed the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in the assessment and discovery of prostate cancer [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. The uniqueness of our study is the assessment of interobserver in the peripheral zone (PZ) and the central zone (CZ) separately, as well as the interobserver agreement of the different pulse sequences of PI-RADS-v2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS–v2)

Ahmed

Ebeed

Hamdy

et al. 2021

Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A retrospective study was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) with a mean age of 56 years and underwent mp-MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla MRI. Two readers recognized all prostatic lesions, and each lesion had a score according to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS-v2). Purpose of the study To evaluate the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in characterization of prostatic lesions using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) at 3 Tesla MRI. Results The overall interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 for both zones was excellent (k = 0.81, percent agreement = 94.9%). In the peripheral zone (PZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS II (k = 0.78, percent agreement = 83.9%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.66, percent agreement = 91.3 %), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.69, percent agreement = 93.5%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.91, percent agreement = 95.7 %). In the transitional zone (TZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS I (k = 0.98, percent of agreement = 96%), PI-RADS II (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 96%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 88%), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.83, percent agreement = 96%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.82, percent agreement = 92%). Conclusion We concluded that PI-RADS-v2 is a reliable and a reproducible imaging modality for the characterization of prostatic lesions and detection of PCa.

show abstract

Accuracy and Interobserver Variability in Reporting of PI-RADS Version 2

Cited by 10 publications

References 15 publications

All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI‐RADSv2 sector map

All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI‐RADSv2 sector map

Validity and Reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses

Interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS–v2)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About