EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Diagnostic accuracy of a five-point Likert scoring system for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluated according to results of MRI/ultrasonography image-fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate.

BJU International 2018 January
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based Likert scoring system in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC), using MRI/ultrasonography (US) image-fusion targeted biopsy (FTB) as a reference standard.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1218 MRI-detected lesions in 629 patients who underwent subsequent MRI/US FTB between October 2012 and August 2015. 3-Tesla MRI was independently reported by one of eight radiologists with varying levels of experience and scored on a five-point Likert scale. All lesions with Likert scores 1-5 were prospectively defined as targets for MRI/US FTB. CSPC was defined as Gleason score ≥7.

RESULTS: The median patient age was 64 years, PSA level 6.97 ng/mL and estimated prostate volume 52.2 mL. Of 1218 lesions, 48% (n = 581) were rated as Likert 1-2, 35% (n = 428) were Likert 3 and 17% (n = 209) were Likert 4-5. For Likert scores 1-5, the overall cancer detection rates were 12%, 13%, 22%, 50% and 59%, respectively, and the CSPC detection rates were 4%, 4%, 12%, 33% and 48%, respectively. Grading using the five-point scale showed strong positive correlation with overall cancer detection rate (r = 0.949, P = 0.05) and CSPC detection rate (r = 0.944, P = 0.05). By comparison, in Likert 4-5 lesions, significant differences were noted in overall cancer detection rate (63% vs 35%; P = 0.001) and CSPC detection rate (47% vs 29%; P = 0.027) for the more experienced vs the less experienced radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS: The detection rates of overall cancer and CSPC strongly correlated with the five-point grading of the Likert scale. Among radiologists with different levels of experience, there were significant differences in these cancer detection rates.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app