Can computer-aided diagnosis assist in the identification of prostate cancer on prostate MRI? a multi-center, multi-reader investigation.

For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions. Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001). PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists' detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development

Outcomes of combination MRI-targeted and transperineal template biopsy in restaging low-risk prostate cancer for active surveillance

Objective: Active surveillance (AS) offers a strategy to reduce overtreatment and now is a widely accepted treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. An ideal tool for risk-stratification would detect aggressive cancers and exclude such men from taking up AS in the first place. We evaluate if a combination of transperineal template biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy identifies significant prostate cancer amongst men initially diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: This prospective, single-blinded study included men with low-risk prostate cancer (D'Amico's Criteria) diagnosed on conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Patients first underwent multiparametric MRI of the prostate ≥6 weeks after initial biopsy. Each suspicious lesion is mapped and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score. Template biopsy is first performed with the surgeon blinded to MRI findings followed by MRI-targeted biopsy using a robotic transperineal biopsy platform. Results: The age of the 19 men included is 65.4 ± 4.9 years (mean ± SD). Prostate specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis and at the time of transperineal biopsy were comparable (7.3 ± 1.7 ng/mL and 7.0 ± 1.8 ng/mL, p = 0.67), so were prostate volumes (34.2 ± 8.9 mL and 32.1 ± 13.4 mL, p = 0.28). MRI-targeted biopsy had a higher percentage of cancer detection per core compared to template biopsy (11.7% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.02), this was more than 3 times superior for Gleason 7 disease (5.9% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.01). Four of 18 (22.2%) patients with MRI lesions had significant disease with MRI-targeted biopsy alone. Three of 19 patients (15.8%) had significant disease with template biopsy alone. In combination, both techniques upclassified five patients (26.3%), all of whom underwent radical prostatectomy. Whole mount histology confirmed tumour location and grade. All six patients with PIRADS 5 lesions had cancer detected (66.6% significant disease). Conclusion: A combination of MRI-targeted and template biopsy may optimally risk-classify “low-risk” patients diagnosed on initial conventional transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) prostate biopsy. Keywords: Active surveillance, Magnetic resonance imaging, Targeted biopsy, Transperineal prostate biopsy, Robotic biopsy, Low-risk prostate cance

All over the map: An interobserver agreement study of tumor location based on the PI-RADSv2 sector map

© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Background: Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADSv2) recommends a sector map for reporting findings of prostate cancer mulitparametric MRI (mpMRI). Anecdotally, radiologists may demonstrate inconsistent reproducibility with this map. Purpose: To evaluate interobserver agreement in defining prostate tumor location on mpMRI using the PI-RADSv2 sector map. Study Type: Retrospective. Population: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent mpMRI between October, 2013 and March, 2015 and who subsequently underwent prostatectomy with whole-mount processing. Field Strength: 3T mpMRI with T 2 W, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] and b-2000), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE). Assessment: Six radiologists (two high, two intermediate, and two low experience) from six institutions participated. Readers were blinded to lesion location and detected up to four lesions as per PI-RADSv2 guidelines. Readers marked the long-axis of lesions, saved screen-shots of each lesion, and then marked the lesion location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. Whole-mount prostatectomy specimens registered to the MRI served as ground truth. Index lesions were defined as the highest grade lesion or largest lesion if grades were equivalent. Statistical Test: Agreement was calculated for the exact, overlap, and proportion of agreement. Results: Readers detected an average of 1.9 lesions per patient (range 1.6–2.3). 96.3% (335/348) of all lesions for all readers were scored PI-RADS ≥3. Readers defined a median of 2 (range 1–18) sectors per lesion. Agreement for detecting index lesions by screen shots was 83.7% (76.1%–89.9%) vs. 71.0% (63.1–78.3%) overlap agreement on the PI-RADS sector map (P \u3c 0.001). Exact agreement for defining sectors of detected index lesions was only 21.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4–27.7%) and rose to 49.0% (42.4–55.3%) when overlap was considered. Agreement on defining the same level of disease (ie, apex, mid, base) was 61.4% (95% CI 50.2–71.8%). Data Conclusion: Readers are highly likely to detect the same index lesion on mpMRI, but exhibit poor reproducibility when attempting to define tumor location on the PI-RADSv2 sector map. The poor agreement of the PI-RADSv2 sector map raises concerns its utility in clinical practice. Level of Evidence: 3. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2018;48:482–490

Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: A multireader study

© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Background: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2. Purpose: To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Study Type: Retrospective. Population/Subjects: In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy. Field Strength/Sequences: Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI). Assessment: Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period. Statistical Tests: Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (P o ) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43–0.67, P o = 0.60–0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, P o = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and P o = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T 2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. Data Conclusion: PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI. Level of Evidence: 2. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2

Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: A multireader study

© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Background: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2. Purpose: To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Study Type: Retrospective. Population/Subjects: In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy. Field Strength/Sequences: Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI). Assessment: Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period. Statistical Tests: Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (P o ) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43–0.67, P o = 0.60–0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, P o = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and P o = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T 2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. Data Conclusion: PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI. Level of Evidence: 2. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2

Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement among radiologists in detecting and assessing prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Treatment-naïve patients underwent 3-T multipara-metric MRI between April 2012 and June 2015. Among the 163 patients evaluated, 110 underwent prostatectomy after MRI and 53 had normal MRI findings and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy results. Nine radiologists participated (three each with high, intermediate, and low levels of experience). Readers interpreted images of 58 patients on average (range, 56-60) using PI-RADSv2. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth. Interob-server agreement was evaluated with the index of specific agreement for lesion detection and kappa and proportion of agreement for PI-RADS category assignment. RESULTS. The radiologists detected 336 lesions. Sensitivity for index lesions was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.1-85.9%), comparable across reader experience (p = 0.392). Patient-level specificity was experience dependent; highly experienced readers had 84.0% specificity versus 55.2% for all others (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent for detecting index lesions (index of specific agreement, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.798-0.923). Agreement on PI-RADSv2 category assignment of index lesions was moderate (κ = 0.419; 95% CI, 0.238-0.595). For individual category assignments, proportion of agreement was slight for PI-RADS category 3 (0.208; 95% CI, 0.086-0.284) but substantial for PI-RADS category 4 (0.674; 95% CI, 0.540-0.776). However, proportion of agreement for T2-weighted PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone was 0.250 (95% CI, 0.108-0.372). Proportion of agreement for category assignment of index lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.728-0.903), on T2-weighted MR images was 0.515 (95% CI, 0.430-0623), and on DW images was 0.586 (95% CI, 0.495-0.682). Proportion of agreement for dominant lesion was excellent (0.828; 95% CI, 0.742-0.913). CONCLUSION. Radiologists across experience levels had excellent agreement for detecting index lesions and moderate agreement for category assignment of lesions using PI-RADS. Future iterations of PI-RADS should clarify PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone

Interreader variability of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at prostate MRI

© American Roentgen Ray Society. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement among radiologists in detecting and assessing prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Treatment-na ve patients underwent 3-T multiparametric MRI between April 2012 and June 2015. Among the 163 patients evaluated, 110 underwent prostatectomy after MRI and 53 had normal MRI findings and transrectal ultrasound- guided biopsy results. Nine radiologists participated (three each with high, intermediate, and low levels of experience). Readers interpreted images of 58 patients on average (range, 56-60) using PI-RADSv2. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with the index of specific agreement for lesion detection and kappa and proportion of agreement for PI-RADS category assignment. RESULTS. The radiologists detected 336 lesions. Sensitivity for index lesions was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.1-85.9%), comparable across reader experience (p = 0.392). Patient-level specificity was experience dependent; highly experienced readers had 84.0% specificity versus 55.2% for all others (p \u3c 0.001). Interobserver agreement was excellent for detecting index lesions (index of specific agreement, 0.871; 95% CI, 0.798-0.923). Agreement on PI-RADSv2 category assignment of index lesions was moderate (= 0.419; 95% CI, 0.238-0.595). For individual category assignments, proportion of agreement was slight for PI-RADS category 3 (0.208; 95% CI, 0.086-0.284) but substantial for PI-RADS category 4 (0.674; 95% CI, 0.540-0.776). However, proportion of agreement for T2-weighted PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone was 0.250 (95% CI, 0.108-0.372). Proportion of agreement for category assignment of index lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images was 0.822 (95% CI, 0.728-0.903), on T2-weighted MR images was 0.515 (95% CI, 0.430-0623), and on DW images was 0.586 (95% CI, 0.495-0.682). Proportion of agreement for dominant lesion was excellent (0.828; 95% CI, 0.742-0.913). CONCLUSION. Radiologists across experience levels had excellent agreement for detecting index lesions and moderate agreement for category assignment of lesions using PI-RADS. Future iterations of PI-RADS should clarify PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 in the transition zone

Quality of Prostate MRI: Is the PI-RADS Standard Sufficient?

© 2020 The Association of University Radiologists Rationale and Objective: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) published a set of minimum technical standards (MTS) to improve image quality and reduce variability in multiparametric prostate MRI. The effect of PIRADSv2 MTS on image quality has not been validated. We aimed to determine whether adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS improves study adequacy and perceived quality. Materials and Methods: Sixty-two prostate MRI examinations including T2 weighted (T2W) and diffusion weighted image (DWI) consecutively referred to our center from 62 different institutions within a 12-month period (September 2017 to September 2018) were included. Six readers assessed images as adequate or inadequate for use in PCa detection and a numerical image quality ranking was given using a 1–5 scale. The PI-RADSv2 MTS were synthesized into sets of seven and 10 rules for T2W and DWI, respectively. Image adherence was assessed using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata. Statistical analysis of survey results and image adherence was performed based on reader quality scoring (Kendall Rank tau-b) and reader adequate scoring (Wilcoxon test for association) for T2 and DWI quality assessment. Results: Out of 62 images, 52 (83%) T2W and 38 (61%) DWIs were rated to be adequate by a majority of readers. Reader adequacy scores showed no significant association with adherence to PI-RADSv2. There was a weak (tau-b = 0.22) but significant (p value = 0.01) correlation between adherence to PIRADSv2 MTS and image quality for T2W. Studies following all PI-RADSv2 T2W rules achieved a higher median average quality score (3.58 for 7/7 vs. 3.0 for \u3c7/7, p = 0.012). No statistical relationship with PI-RADSv2 MTS adherence and DWI quality was found. Conclusion: Among 62 sites performing prostate MRI, few were considered of high quality, but the majority were considered adequate. DWI showed considerably lower rates of adequate studies in the sample. Adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS did not increase the likelihood of having a qualitatively adequate T2W or DWI