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

Abstract

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.

Correlation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient with Gleason Score, TNM Staging, and PI-RADSv2 of Prostate Cancer at 3 Tesla

“…The time delay between the TRUS-guided biopsy and MR imaging was 6 weeks. The patients in this study were part of a previous study to analyze the inter-observer agreement of PI-RADS v2 [7] .…”

“…1) on all sectors of the tumor, and the mean values of the tumor were considered. The radiologist used T2WI, DWI, and Dynamic MR to classify the prostate lesion according to PI-RADSv2 [7] . The MR images divided the prostate into 6 zones into both sides at the base, mid part, and apex of the gland to simulate the systematic TRUS biopsies taken from different regions of the prostate.…”

“…PI-RADS v2 is considered a qualitative MR imaging and reporting system that aims to standardize acquisition, interpretation, and reporting to propose a stratification of the risk of harboring prostate cancer. PI-RADSv2 utilizes the signal of T2-weighted imaging, diffusionweighted imaging (DWI), and pattern of enhancement at dynamic contrast MR imaging with the creation of 5 points grade scale to diagnose prostate cancer [7][8][9] . Our group study previously reported that PI-RADS-v2 is reliable and reproducible imaging for detection of prostate cancer with an excellent overall inter observer agreement (k= 0.81) for both zones [7] .…”

“…PI-RADSv2 utilizes the signal of T2-weighted imaging, diffusionweighted imaging (DWI), and pattern of enhancement at dynamic contrast MR imaging with the creation of 5 points grade scale to diagnose prostate cancer [7][8][9] . Our group study previously reported that PI-RADS-v2 is reliable and reproducible imaging for detection of prostate cancer with an excellent overall inter observer agreement (k= 0.81) for both zones [7] .…”

In prostatic transition zone lesions (PI-RADS v2.1): which subgroup should be biopsied?

“…However, due to limitations such as suboptimal inter-reader responsibility, a high false-negative rate for the lower PI-RADS assessment category, and a lower detection rate for TZ prostate cancer (TZPC) than for PZ prostate cancer, the updated PI-RADS Version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) was developed in 2019 [9][10][11]. Several studies suggested that PI-RADS v2.1 is preferable for evaluating transition-zone lesions and showed that it provided comparable interreader agreement [12][13][14]. One study reported that typical benign prostatic nodules in the TZ were downgraded, but there were no significant changes in the number of positive and negative MRI results identified using PI-RADS v2.1 [15].…”