Prostate cancer: Interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric mr imaging1

Radiology

Volumn 277, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 741-750

  Muller, Berrend G ^a,f   Shih, Joanna H ^b   Sankineni, Sandeep ^a   Marko, Jamie ^g,h   Rais Bahrami, Soroush ^c   George, Arvin Koruthu ^c   De La Rosette, Jean J M C H ^f   Merino, Maria J ^d   Wood, Bradford J ^e   Pinto, Peter ^c   Choyke, Peter L ^a   Turkbey, Baris ^a  

^a Molecular Imaging Program   (United States)

^b Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis   (United States)

^c Urologic Oncology Branch   (United States)

^d Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine   (United States)

^e Center for Interventional Oncology   (United States)

^f NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^h UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; RADIATION EQUIPMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; BIOPSY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84948736672     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142818     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746-757.
2. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol 2005;15(5):1027-1036.
3. Baur AD, Maxeiner A, Franiel T, et al. Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2014;49(6):411-420.
4. Junker D, Schäfer G, Edlinger M, et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for classifying mpMRI findings in men with suspicion of prostate cancer. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:252939.
5. American College of Radiology. PIRADS v2. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2014.
6. Bomers JG, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PI-RADS. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014: 431680.
7. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011;186(5):1818-1824.
8. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010;255(1):89-99.
9. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;186(4):1281-1285.
10. Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusionguided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int 2015; 115(5):772-779.
11. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, et al. Realtime MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 2008;13(5):255-264.
12. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190(5):1721-1727.
13. Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/ transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2014;191(6):1749-1754.
14. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013;268(1):144-152.
15. Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric Statistical Methods 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Wiley 1999.
16. Hoffman EB, Sen PK, Weinberg CR. Withincluster resampling. Biometrika 2001;88(4): 1121-1134.
17. Williamson JM, Datta S, Satten GA. Marginal analyses of clustered data when cluster size is informative. Biometrics 2003;59(1):36-42.
18. Team TRC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www. R-project. org/. Published 2014. Accessed December 6, uk 2014.
19. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(4):W612-W618.
20. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269(2):482-492.
21. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 2013;23(11):3185-3190.
22. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2014;83(12):2103-2108.
23. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur Radiol 2014;24(10):2582-2589.
24. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusionguided biopsy at 3. 0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24(2):344-352.
25. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012;62(6):986-996.
26. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67(6):1112-1121.
27. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59(4):477-494.
28. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasoundfusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(5):713-719.
29. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int 2015;115(3):381-388.