Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters.
Kang, Hyunseon C; Jo, Nahyun; Bamashmos, Anas Saeed; Ahmed, Mona; Sun, Jia; Ward, John F; Choi, Haesun.
Afiliação
  • Kang HC; Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Jo N; Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Bamashmos AS; Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Ahmed M; Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Sun J; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Ward JF; Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Choi H; Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Eur Urol Open Sci ; 27: 53-60, 2021 May.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33899028
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the detection, image-guided biopsy, and active surveillance of prostate cancer. The accuracy of prostate MRI may differ based on factors including imaging technique, patient population, and reader experience.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether the accuracy of prostate MRI varies with reader experience. DESIGN SETTING AND

PARTICIPANTS:

We rescored regions of interest from 194 consecutive patients who had undergone MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy. Original prostate MRI scans had been interpreted by one of 33 abdominal radiologists (AR group). More than 14 mo later, rescoring was performed by two blinded, prostate MRI radiologists (PR group). Likert scoring was used for both original MRI reports and rescoring. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL

ANALYSIS:

Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) of prostate MRI was defined for the AR and PR groups. A Likert score of 4-5 was considered test positive and clinically significant prostate carcinoma (csPCa; Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥2) was considered outcome positive. RESULTS AND

LIMITATIONS:

MRI-positive lesions (Likert 4-5) scored by the PR group resulted in csPCa more frequently than those scored by the AR group (64.9% vs 39.3%). MRI-negative lesions (Likert 2-3) were more likely to result in a clinically insignificant biopsy (benign pathology or GGG 1) when scored by the PR versus the AR group (91.8% vs 76.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect csPCa were higher for the PR group than for the AR group (sensitivity 85.9% vs 70.7%; specificity 77.3% vs 46.8%). Overall diagnostic accuracy was higher for the PR group than for the AR group (80.1% vs 54.6%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of prostate MRI were higher for the PR group than for the AR group. PATIENT

SUMMARY:

We examined the accuracy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in two groups of radiologists. Experienced radiologists were more likely to detect clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article