Advanced strain elastography is a reliable approach for prostate cancer detection in patients with elevated PSA levels.

This study aimed to examine the validity and reproducibility of strain elastography (SE) for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The study included 107 patients with elevated PSA levels. All eligible patients underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) with real-time elastography (RTE) to detect suspicious lesions. Two readers independently evaluated the lesions and assigned a strain ratio and elastography score to each lesion. Histopathology was used as a reference standard to estimate the validity of RTE in predicting malignant lesions. An intraclass correlation (ICC) was performed to detect reliability of the strain ratios and elastography scores. TRUS-guided biopsy detected malignancies in 64 (59.8%) patients. TRUS with RTE revealed 122 lesions. The strain ratio index (SRI) cut-off values to diagnose malignancy were 4.05 and 4.35, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 94.7%, 91.3%, and 93.4%, respectively. An elastography score > 3 was the best cut-off value for detecting malignancy. According to readers, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 91.3-94.7%, 89.5-93.4%, and 91.3-90.9%, respectively. Excellent inter-reader agreement was recorded for SRI and elastography scores, with ICC of 0.937 and 0.800, respectively. SE proves to be an efficient tool for detecting PCa with high accuracy in patients with elevated PSA levels.

MRI-Based Classification for Tibial Spine Fracture: Detection Efficacy, Classification Accuracy, and Reliability.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Recently, a new MRI-based classification for evaluating tibial spine fractures (TSFs) was developed to aid in treating these injuries. Our objective was to assess the detection efficacy, classification accuracy, and reliability of this classification in detecting and grading TSFs, as well as its impact on treatment strategy, compared to the Meyers and McKeever (MM) classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study included 68 patients with arthroscopically confirmed TSFs. All patients had plain radiography and conventional MRI of the affected knee before arthroscopy. Three experienced radiologists independently reviewed all plain radiographs and MRI data and graded each patient according to MM and MRI-based classifications. The detection efficacy, classification accuracy, and inter-rater agreement of both classifications were evaluated and compared, using arthroscopic findings as the gold standard. RESULTS: The final analysis included 68 affected knees. Compared to the MM classification, the MRI-based classification produced 22.0% upgrade of TSFs and 11.8% downgrade of TSFs. According to the reviewers, the fracture classification accuracy of the MRI-based classification (91.2-95.6%) was significantly higher than that of the MM classification (73.5-76.5%, p = 0.002-0.01). The fracture detection rate of MRI-based classification (94.1-98.5%) was non-significantly higher than that of the MM classification (83.8-89.7%, p = 0.07-0.4). The soft tissue injury detection accuracy for MRI-based classification was 91.2-94.1%. The inter-rater reliability for grading TSFs was substantial for both the MM classification (κ = 0.69) and MRI-based classification (κ = 0.79). CONCLUSION: MRI-based classification demonstrates greater accuracy and reliability compared to MM classification for detecting and grading TSFs and associated soft tissue injuries.

Inter-observer Variability in the Analysis of CO-RADS Classification for COVID-19 Patients.

During the early stages of the pandemic, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, along with serological and clinical data, was frequently utilized in diagnosing COVID-19, particularly in regions facing challenges such as shortages of PCR kits. In these circumstances, CT scans played a crucial role in diagnosing COVID-19 and guiding patient management. The COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) was established as a standardized reporting system for cases of COVID-19 pneumonia. Its implementation necessitates a high level of agreement among observers to prevent any potential confusion. This study aimed to assess the inter-observer agreement between physicians from different specialties with variable levels of experience in their CO-RADS scoring of CT chests for confirmed COVID-19 patients, and to assess the feasibility of applying this reporting system to those having little experience with it. All chest CT images of patients with positive RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 were retrospectively reviewed by seven observers. The observers were divided into three groups according to their type of specialty (three radiologists, three house officers, and one pulmonologist). The observers assessed each image and categorized the patients into five CO-RADS groups. A total of 630 participants were included in this study. The inter-observer agreement was almost perfect among the radiologists, substantial among a pulmonologist and the house officers, and moderate-to-substantial among the radiologists, the pulmonologist, and the house officers. There was substantial to almost perfect inter-observer agreement when reporting using the CO-RADS among observers with different experience levels. Although the inter-observer variability among the radiologists was high, it decreased compared to the pulmonologist and house officers. Radiologists, house officers, and pulmonologists applying the CO-RADS can accurately and promptly identify typical CT imaging features of lung involvement in COVID-19.