• Chao-Gang Wei, Yue-Yue Zhang, Peng Pan, Tong Chen, Hong-Chang Yu, Guang-Cheng Dai, Jian Tu, Shuo Yang, Wen-Lu Zhao, and Jun-Kang Shen.
• Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
• AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 May 1; 216 (5): 1247-1256.

AbstractBACKGROUND. PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced a number of key changes to the assessment of transition zone (TZ) lesions. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting TZ prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) by use of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 among radiologists with different levels of experience. METHODS. This retrospective study included 355 biopsy-naïve patients who from January 2017 to March 2020 underwent prostate MRI that showed a TZ lesion and underwent subsequent biopsy. PCa was diagnosed in 93 patients (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group 1, n = 34; ISUP grade group ≥ 2, n = 59) and non-cancerous lesions in 262 patients. Five radiologists with varying experience in prostate MRI scored lesions using PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 in sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with kappa and Kendall W statistics. ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate performance in detection of TZ PCa and csPCa. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement among all readers was higher for PI-RADS v2.1 than for PI-RADS v2 (mean weighted κ = 0.700 vs 0.622; Kendall W = 0.805 vs 0.728; p = .03). The pooled AUC values for detecting TZ PCa and csPCa were higher among all readers using PI-RADS v2.1 (0.866 vs 0.827 for TZ PCa; 0.929 vs 0.899 for TZ csPCa; p < .001). For detecting TZ PCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.9%, 79.4%, and 75.4% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 79.4%, 71.8%, and 73.8% for PI-RADS v2. For detecting TZ csPCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.8%, 90.9%, and 89.9% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 81.4%, 89.9%, and 88.5% for PI-RADS v2. Reader 1, who had the least experience, had the lowest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (78.0%, 89.2%, and 87.3%). Reader 5, who had the most experience, had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (88.1%, 92.9%, and 92.1%) in detecting csPCa. CONCLUSION. PI-RADS v2.1 had better interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy than PI-RADS v2 for evaluating TZ lesions. Reader experience continues to affect the performance of prostate MRI interpretation with PI-RADS v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. PI-RADS v2.1 is more accurate and reproducible than PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of TZ PCa.

20 keywords...

hide…