Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: Diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 89, Issue 1062, 2016, Pages

  Lin, Wei Ching ^a,b   Muglia, Valdair F ^c   Silva, Gyl E B ^c   Filho, Salomão Chodraui ^c   Reis, Rodolfo B ^c   Westphalen, Antonio C ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGIST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KAPPA STATISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM V. 2; PROSTATECTOMY; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO SCORE; ALGORITHM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INTERNATIONALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84989881118     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20151056     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, MacAiran M, Lieu P, Huang J, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013; 189: 86-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. juro.2012.08.095
2. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012; 187: 1247-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
3. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, Begum H, Partin AW, Epstein JI, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1037-45. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x
4. Muller BG, van den Bos W, Brausi M, Cornud F, Gontero P, Kirkham A, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: a Delphi consensus project. BJU Int 2014; 114: 698-707. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12548
5. Lee T, Mendhiratta N, Sperling D, Lepor H. Focal laser ablation for localized prostate cancer: principles, clinical trials, and our initial experience. Rev Urol 2014; 16: 55-66.
6. Foltz WD, Wu A, Chung P, Catton C, Bayley A, Milosevic M, et al. Changes in apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 relaxation during radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 909-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23885
7. Liu L, Wu N, Ouyang H, Dai JR, Wang WH. Diffusion-weighted MRI in early assessment of tumour response to radiotherapy in highrisk prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2014; 87: 20140359. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140359
8. Barrett T, Gill AB, Kataoka MY, Priest AN, Joubert I, McLean MA, et al. DCE and DW MRI in monitoring response to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Med 2012; 67: 778-85. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.23062
9. Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B, Ackermann H, Vogl TJ. MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 456-60. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.076
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
11. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, Hindman N, Deng FM, Babb JS, 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: 482-92. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122233
12. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Lanzman RS, Hiester A, Rabenalt R, 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: 3185-90. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s00330-013-2922-y
13. Schieda N, Quon JS, Lim C, El-Khodary M, Shabana W, Singh V, et al. Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84: 1843-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ejrad.2015.06.016
14. Westphalen AC, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS): reflections on early experience with a standardized interpretation scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 121-3. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10889
15. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013; 268: 144-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121325
16. ACR. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. In: ACR, ed. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). 1st ed. Volume 2015. Washington, DC: DC American College of Radiology; 2015.
17. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, Marko J, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 277: 741-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142818
18. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 477-94. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2010.12.009
19. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S, Sheng K, King C, Reiter R, et al. Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012; 2012: 374805. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/374805
20. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, et al. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score-a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013; 267: 787-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121454
21. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2014; 271: 143-52. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130973
22. Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, Caraiani C, Lucan C, Suciu M, et al. Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 2014; 14: 15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-14-15
23. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258: 488-95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100667
24. Bains LJ, Studer UE, Froehlich JM, Giannarini G, Triantafyllou M, Fleischmann A, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging detects significant prostate cancer with high probability. J Urol 2014; 192: 737-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. juro.2014.03.039
25. Taouli B, Goh JS, Lu Y, Qayyum A, Yeh BM, Merriman RB, et al. Growth rate of hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with serial computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005; 29: 425-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01. rct.0000164036.85327.05
26. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-45. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2531595
27. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.2307/2529310
28. Rosenkrantz AB, Obele C, Rusinek H, Balar AV, Huang WC, Deng FM, et al. Wholelesion diffusion metrics for assessment of bladder cancer aggressiveness. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40: 327-32. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0213-y
29. Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, Merkle EM. Short-and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 2009; 250: 459-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2502080849
30. Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Goldenberg SL. Diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer-comparison between single-shot fast spin echo and echo planar imaging sequences. Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 26: 72-6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2007.04.008
31. Lin WC, Chen JH. Pitfalls and limitations of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer. Transl Oncol 2015; 8: 217-30. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. tranon.2015.04.003
32. Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, Vannier MW, Antic T, Thomas S, et al. Dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? Radiology 2015; 275: 448-57. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1148/radiol.14140847.
33. Baur AD, Maxeiner A, Franiel T, Kilic E, Huppertz A, Schwenke C, 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: 411-20. doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000030
34. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1080-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12259
35. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Bilim V. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate 2005; 62: 140-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.20124