Inter-Reader Variability Using PI-RADS v2 Versus PI-RADS v2.1: Most New Disagreement Stems from Scores 1 and 2.

Autor:	Beetz NL; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Haas M; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Baur A; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Konietschke F; Department of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Roy A; Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, DURHAM, United States., Hamm CA; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Rudolph MM; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Shnayien S; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Hamm B; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Cash H; Department of Urology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Asbach P; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany., Penzkofer T; Department of Radiology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Germany.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin [Rofo] 2022 Aug; Vol. 194 (8), pp. 852-861. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 May 11.
DOI:	10.1055/a-1752-1038
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To analyze possible differences in the inter-reader variability between PI-RADS version 2 (v2) and version 2.1 (v2.1) for the classification of prostate lesions using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. Methods: In this retrospective and randomized study, 239 annotated and histopathologically correlated prostate lesions (104 positive and 135 negative for prostate cancer) were rated twice by three experienced uroradiologists using PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 with an interval of at least two months between readings. Results were tabulated across readers and reading timepoints and inter-reader variability was determined using Fleiss' kappa (κ). Thereafter, an additional analysis of the data was performed in which PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 were combined, as they have the same clinical consequences. Results: PI-PI-RADS v2.1 showed better inter-reader agreement in the peripheral zone (PZ), but poorer inter-reader agreement in the transition zone (TZ) (PZ: κ = 0.63 vs. κ = 0.58; TZ: κ = 0.47 vs. κ = 0.57). When PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 were combined, the use of PI-RADS v2.1 resulted in almost perfect inter-reader agreement in the PZ and substantial agreement in the TZ (PZ: κ = 0.81; TZ: κ = 0.80). Conclusion: PI-RADS v2.1 improves inter-reader agreement in the PZ. New differences in inter-reader agreement were mainly the result of the assignment of PI-RADS v2.1 scores 1 and 2 to lesions in the TZ. Combining scores 1 and 2 improved inter-reader agreement both in the TZ and in the PZ, indicating that refined definitions may be warranted for these PI-RADS scores. Key Points: · PI-RADSv2.1 improves inter-reader agreement in the PZ but not in the TZ.. · New differences derived from PI-RADSv2.1 scores 1 and 2 in the TZ.. · Combined PI-RADSv2.1 scores of 1 and 2 yielded better inter-reader agreement.. · PI-RADSv2.1 appears to provide more precise description of lesions in the PZ.. · Improved inter-reader agreement in the PZ stresses the importance of appropriate lexicon description.. Citation Format: · Beetz N, Haas M, Baur A et al. Inter-Reader Variability Using PI-RADS v2 Versus PI-RADS v2.1: Most New Disagreement Stems from Scores 1 and 2. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 852 - 861. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. (Thieme. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu