Accuracy and Interobserver Variability in Reporting of PI-RADS Version 2

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 14, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 1202-1205

  Flood, Thomas F ^a   Pokharel, Sajal S ^a   Patel, Nayana U ^a   Clark, Toshimasa J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIOLOGIST; RESIDENT; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 85019684768     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: 1558349X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.012     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Jemal, A., Cancer statistics 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66 (2016), 7–30.
2. Zajdlewicz L, Hyde MK, Lepore SJ, Gardiner RA, Chambers SK. Health-related quality of life after the diagnosis of locally advanced or advanced prostate cancer: a longitudinal study. Cancer Nurs. 2017 Mar 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000432. [Epub ahead of print].
3. Ueno, Y., Tamada, T., Bist, V., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: current role in prostate cancer management. Int J Urol 23 (2016), 550–557.
4. de Rooij, M., Hamoen, E.H.J., Witjes, J.A., Barentsz, J.O., Rovers, M.M., Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70 (2016), 233–245.
5. Fütterer, J.J., Briganti, A., De Visschere, P., et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68 (2015), 1045–1053.
6. Hoeks, C.M.A., Barentsz, J.O., Hambrock, T., et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261 (2011), 46–66.
7. Johnson, L.M., Turkbey, B., Figg, W.D., Choyke, P.L., Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11 (2014), 346–353.
8. Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22 (2012), 746–757.
9. Weinreb, J.C., Barentsz, J.O., Choyke, P.L., et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69 (2016), 16–40.
10. Tewes, S., Mokov, N., Hartung, D., et al. Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PloS One, 11, 2016, e0162879.
11. Vargas, H.A., Hötker, A.M., Goldman, D.A., et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26 (2016), 1606–1612.
12. Park, S.Y., Oh, Y.T., Jung, D.C., et al. Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with PI-RADS version 2 in prostate cancers: initial results. Eur Radiol 26 (2016), 2502–2509.
13. Muller, B.G., Shih, J.H., Sankineni, S., et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277 (2015), 741–750.
14. Park, S.Y., Jung, D.C., Oh, Y.T., et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 280 (2016), 108–116.
15. Rosenkrantz, A.B., Ginocchio, L.A., Cornfeld, D., et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280 (2016), 793–804.