Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales.

PURPOSE To compare the recently proposed Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale that incorporates fixed criteria and a standard Likert scale based on overall impression in prostate cancer localization using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seventy patients who underwent 3-T pelvic MR imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included. Three radiologists, each with 6 years of experience, independently scored 18 regions (12 peripheral zone [PZ], six transition zone [TZ]) using PI-RADS (range, scores 3-15) and Likert (range, scores 1-5) scales. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to compare scales for detection of tumors larger than 3 mm in maximal diameter at prostatectomy. RESULTS Maximal accuracy was achieved with score thresholds of 8 and higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively. At these thresholds, in the PZ, similar accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223) and radiologist 3 (88.5% vs 88.2%, P = .739) and greater accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008). In the TZ, accuracy was lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001), radiologist 2 (87.6% vs 92.6%, P = .002), and radiologist 3 (82.9% vs 91.2%, P < .001). For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032), and sensitivity was similar for radiologist 2 (78.0% vs 76.5, P = .467) and radiologist 3 (77.3% vs 81.1%, P = .125). CONCLUSION Radiologists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122233/-/DC1.

[1]  Raj Persad,et al.  Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[3]  H. Hricak,et al.  The incremental value of contrast-enhanced MRI in the detection of biopsy-proven local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: effect of reader experience. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Boris Bodelle,et al.  MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[6]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[7]  M. Colombel,et al.  Is it possible to model the risk of malignancy of focal abnormalities found at prostate multiparametric MRI? , 2012, European Radiology.

[8]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[9]  G. Haber,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection , 2011, BJU international.

[10]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

[11]  Jin Young Kwak,et al.  Thyroid imaging reporting and data system for US features of nodules: a step in establishing better stratification of cancer risk. , 2011, Radiology.

[12]  M. Rouprêt,et al.  Controverses dans le cancer de la prostate localisé : épidémiologie, dépistage et stadification , 2011 .

[13]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[14]  Ralph Strecker,et al.  Areas Suspicious for Prostate Cancer : MR – guided Biopsy in Patients with at Least One Transrectal US-guided Biopsy with a Negative Finding — Multiparametric MR Imaging for Detection and Biopsy Planning 1 , 2011 .

[15]  P. Choyke,et al.  D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[16]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[17]  A. Evans,et al.  ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging , 2010, BJU international.

[18]  Bernadette M. Greenwood,et al.  Trans-rectal interventional MRI: initial prostate biopsy experience , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[19]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy--results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. , 2009, Radiology.

[20]  Kyung Ah Kim,et al.  Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection--a multireader study. , 2009, Radiology.

[21]  M. Sumura,et al.  Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[22]  Daniel Vanel,et al.  BIRADS classification in mammography. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[23]  A. Villers,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[24]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[25]  Evis Sala,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[26]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[27]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. , 2004, Radiology.

[28]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Predictive value of primary Gleason pattern 4 in patients with Gleason score 7 tumours treated with radical prostatectomy , 2004, BJU international.

[29]  L. Egevad,et al.  Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer , 2002, BJU international.

[30]  A W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.