We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
European Journal of Radiology 2017 September
PURPOSE: to simultaneously evaluate interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy in the of PI-RADS v2 and compare it to v1.
METHODS: A total of 67 patients (median age 65.3 y, range 51.2-78.2 y; PSA 6.8μg/L, 0.2-33μg/L) undergoing MRI of the prostate and subsequent transperineal template biopsy within ≤6 months from MRI were included. Four readers from two institutions evaluated the likelihood of prostate cancer using PI-RADS v1 and v2 in two separate reading sessions ≥3 months apart. Interreader agreement was assessed for each pulse-sequence and for total PI-RADS scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences were considered significant for non-overlapping 95%-confidence intervals. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AZ ). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Interreader agreement for DCE-scores was good in v2 (ICC2 =0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.74) and slightly lower in v1 (ICC1 =0.64, 0.59-0.69). Agreement for DWI scores (ICC1 =0.77, ICC2 =0.76) as well as final PI-RADS scores per quadrant were nearly identical (ICC1 =ICC2 =0.71). Diagnostic accuracy showed no significant differences (p=0.09-0.93) between v1 and v2 in any of the readers (range: AZ =0.78-0.88).
CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores show similar interreader agreement in v2 and v1 at comparable diagnostic performance. The simplification of the DCE interpretation in v2 might slightly improve agreement while not negatively affecting diagnostic performance.
METHODS: A total of 67 patients (median age 65.3 y, range 51.2-78.2 y; PSA 6.8μg/L, 0.2-33μg/L) undergoing MRI of the prostate and subsequent transperineal template biopsy within ≤6 months from MRI were included. Four readers from two institutions evaluated the likelihood of prostate cancer using PI-RADS v1 and v2 in two separate reading sessions ≥3 months apart. Interreader agreement was assessed for each pulse-sequence and for total PI-RADS scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences were considered significant for non-overlapping 95%-confidence intervals. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AZ ). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Interreader agreement for DCE-scores was good in v2 (ICC2 =0.70; 95% CI: 0.66-0.74) and slightly lower in v1 (ICC1 =0.64, 0.59-0.69). Agreement for DWI scores (ICC1 =0.77, ICC2 =0.76) as well as final PI-RADS scores per quadrant were nearly identical (ICC1 =ICC2 =0.71). Diagnostic accuracy showed no significant differences (p=0.09-0.93) between v1 and v2 in any of the readers (range: AZ =0.78-0.88).
CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores show similar interreader agreement in v2 and v1 at comparable diagnostic performance. The simplification of the DCE interpretation in v2 might slightly improve agreement while not negatively affecting diagnostic performance.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
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
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