Preliminary Exploration of the Application of Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) in Post-treatment Patients With Bladder Cancer: A Prospective Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) has been shown to be effective in diagnosing muscle invasion of bladder cancer (BC) in primary patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of VI-RADS in a BC target population which included post-treatment patients, and to determine the repeatability. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Seventy-three patients (42 with primary BC, 31 with post-treatment BC). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 T MRI with propeller fast spin-echo T2 WI, echo planer imaging diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCEI). ASSESSMENT: VI-RADS scores were independently assessed by five radiologists with different levels of experience. The diagnostic efficiency in each group (primary and post-treatment) and of each radiologist was assessed. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were calculated to evaluate VI-RADS diagnostic performance. Interobserver agreement was assessed using weighted Kappa statistics. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: At the corresponding cut-off, AUC values of three groups range from 0.936 to 0.947 and AUC values of five observers range from 0.901 to 0.963. There was no significant difference between the AUCs in the primary and post-treatment groups (P = 0.870). The cut-off of the whole group and the post-treatment group was ≥4, and the cut-off of the primary group was ≥3. The Kappa values of interobserver agreements range from 0.709 to 0.923. CONCLUSIONS: After expanding the target population to include post-treatment patients, VI-RADS still has good diagnostic efficacy and repeatability. VI-RADS could potentially be a preoperative staging tool for post-treatment patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.