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)...
Saved in:
Published in: | Current urology reports 2022, Vol.23 (1), p.1-10 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |