Loading…

Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review

Purpose of Review To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current urology reports 2022, Vol.23 (1), p.1-10
Main Authors: Annamalai, Arvind, Fustok, Judy N., Beltran-Perez, Jesus, Rashad, Ahmed T., Krane, Louis S., Triche, Benjamin L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813
container_end_page 10
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Current urology reports
container_volume 23
creator Annamalai, Arvind
Fustok, Judy N.
Beltran-Perez, Jesus
Rashad, Ahmed T.
Krane, Louis S.
Triche, Benjamin L.
description Purpose of Review To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Recent Findings Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. Summary PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2634513346</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2634513346</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwAyyQl2wCHpI4YVdVDJWKQAXWluM8l1RNUmynKH-PO8CSlS373Kv3DkKXlNxQQsStozTncUQYiwglWRz1R2hIk_CUsiw53t6ZiJjgYoDOnFsSwkjATtGAJ4ylLBFDJKeNB9sWDuwGLB4vLEANjceqKfFY684q3eOqwTtubcFXzQLX6-f5FLcG-0_Ar7Z1Xnm4wwq_9c5DrXyl8Rw2FXyfoxOjVg4uDucIfTzcv0-eotnL43QynkWax8JHuTCaFFxwKgxTRSIYIzotS1GoLOWKmiLjJk6FyEUeZyYBwoSJRaFzUiYmo3yErve9a9t-deC8rCunYbVSDbSdkyzlcUI5j9OAsj2qw-DOgpFrW9XK9pISuRUr92JlECt3YmUfQleH_q6oofyL_JoMAN8DLnw1C7By2Xa2CTv_V_sD0QKEDw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2634513346</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Annamalai, Arvind ; Fustok, Judy N. ; Beltran-Perez, Jesus ; Rashad, Ahmed T. ; Krane, Louis S. ; Triche, Benjamin L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Annamalai, Arvind ; Fustok, Judy N. ; Beltran-Perez, Jesus ; Rashad, Ahmed T. ; Krane, Louis S. ; Triche, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose of Review To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Recent Findings Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. Summary PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1527-2737</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-6285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35226257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Nephrology ; New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter ; Observer Variation ; Prostate - diagnostic imaging ; Prostate - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Section Editors ; Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Current urology reports, 2022, Vol.23 (1), p.1-10</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6083-1020</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35226257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Annamalai, Arvind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fustok, Judy N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beltran-Perez, Jesus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rashad, Ahmed T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krane, Louis S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Triche, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><title>Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review</title><title>Current urology reports</title><addtitle>Curr Urol Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Curr Urol Rep</addtitle><description>Purpose of Review To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Recent Findings Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. Summary PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostate - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Section Editors</subject><subject>Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>1527-2737</issn><issn>1534-6285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwAyyQl2wCHpI4YVdVDJWKQAXWluM8l1RNUmynKH-PO8CSlS373Kv3DkKXlNxQQsStozTncUQYiwglWRz1R2hIk_CUsiw53t6ZiJjgYoDOnFsSwkjATtGAJ4ylLBFDJKeNB9sWDuwGLB4vLEANjceqKfFY684q3eOqwTtubcFXzQLX6-f5FLcG-0_Ar7Z1Xnm4wwq_9c5DrXyl8Rw2FXyfoxOjVg4uDucIfTzcv0-eotnL43QynkWax8JHuTCaFFxwKgxTRSIYIzotS1GoLOWKmiLjJk6FyEUeZyYBwoSJRaFzUiYmo3yErve9a9t-deC8rCunYbVSDbSdkyzlcUI5j9OAsj2qw-DOgpFrW9XK9pISuRUr92JlECt3YmUfQleH_q6oofyL_JoMAN8DLnw1C7By2Xa2CTv_V_sD0QKEDw</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>Annamalai, Arvind</creator><creator>Fustok, Judy N.</creator><creator>Beltran-Perez, Jesus</creator><creator>Rashad, Ahmed T.</creator><creator>Krane, Louis S.</creator><creator>Triche, Benjamin L.</creator><general>Springer US</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6083-1020</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review</title><author>Annamalai, Arvind ; Fustok, Judy N. ; Beltran-Perez, Jesus ; Rashad, Ahmed T. ; Krane, Louis S. ; Triche, Benjamin L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostate - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Section Editors</topic><topic>Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Annamalai, Arvind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fustok, Judy N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beltran-Perez, Jesus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rashad, Ahmed T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krane, Louis S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Triche, Benjamin L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Current urology reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Annamalai, Arvind</au><au>Fustok, Judy N.</au><au>Beltran-Perez, Jesus</au><au>Rashad, Ahmed T.</au><au>Krane, Louis S.</au><au>Triche, Benjamin L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Current urology reports</jtitle><stitle>Curr Urol Rep</stitle><addtitle>Curr Urol Rep</addtitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>1-10</pages><issn>1527-2737</issn><eissn>1534-6285</eissn><abstract>Purpose of Review To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Recent Findings Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers. Summary PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>35226257</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6083-1020</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1527-2737
ispartof Current urology reports, 2022, Vol.23 (1), p.1-10
issn 1527-2737
1534-6285
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2634513346
source Springer Nature
subjects Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Nephrology
New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter
Observer Variation
Prostate - diagnostic imaging
Prostate - pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Section Editors
Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques
Urology
title Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A59%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interobserver%20Agreement%20and%20Accuracy%20in%20Interpreting%20mpMRI%20of%20the%20Prostate:%20a%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Current%20urology%20reports&rft.au=Annamalai,%20Arvind&rft.date=2022&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=1-10&rft.issn=1527-2737&rft.eissn=1534-6285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2634513346%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-97fc0b37317f2ab57220c6dd7ba863a1fb83f467797948f5e027f47bc90d5f813%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2634513346&rft_id=info:pmid/35226257&rfr_iscdi=true