Prostate Cancer Localization Using Multiparametric MR Imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert Scales
Prostate Cancer Localization Using Multiparametric MR Imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert Scales
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.13122233
复制
发表时间：
2013-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Taneja, Samir S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.;Kim, Sooah;Taneja, Samir S.
目的：比较最近提出的前列腺成像报告和数据系统（PI-RADS）量表，该量表包含固定标准和基于多参数磁共振（MR）成像前列腺癌定位总体印象的标准李克特量表。材料和方法：本回顾性研究符合HIPAA标准，并得到机构审查委员会的批准。70例患者在根治性前列腺切除术前接受了3-T盆腔MR成像，包括t2加权成像，弥散加权成像和动态对比材料增强成像，盆腔相控阵线圈。三位具有6年经验的放射科医生分别使用PI-RADS（范围，得分3-15）和Likert（范围，得分1-5）量表对18个区域（12个外围区[PZ]， 6个过渡区[TZ]）进行独立评分。对相关数据进行Logistic回归，比较前列腺切除术中最大直径大于3mm肿瘤的检测尺度。结果：PI-RADS和Likert评分阈值分别为8分及以上和3分及以上时达到最大准确度。在这些阈值下，在PZ中，PI-RADS量表与放射科医师1（89.0%对88.2%,P = .223）和放射科医师3（88.5%对88.2%,P = .739）的李克特量表的准确性相似，PI-RADS量表的准确性高于放射科医师2（89.6%对87.1%,P = .008）的李克特量表。在TZ中，PI-RADS量表的准确性低于放射科医师1（70.0%对87.1%,P < 0.001）、放射科医师2（87.6%对92.6%,P = 0.002）和放射科医师3（82.9%对91.2%,P < 0.001）的李克特量表。对于Gleason评分至少为7分的肿瘤，放射医师1的PI-RADS量表的敏感性高于李克特量表（88.6%比82.6%,P = 0.032），放射医师2（78.0%比76.5,P = 0.467）和放射医师3（77.3%比81.1%,P = 0.125）的敏感性相似。结论：放射科医生在PI-RADS和Likert量表中对肿瘤定位的表现都很好，尽管在TZ中，Likert量表的表现优于PI-RADS量表。(c) rsna, 2013
Purpose: To compare the recently proposed Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale that incorporates fixed criteria and a standard Likert scale based on overall impression in prostate cancer localization using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seventy patients who underwent 3-T pelvic MR imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included. Three radiologists, each with 6 years of experience, independently scored 18 regions (12 peripheral zone [PZ], six transition zone [TZ]) using PI-RADS (range, scores 3-15) and Likert (range, scores 1-5) scales. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to compare scales for detection of tumors larger than 3 mm in maximal diameter at prostatectomy.Results: Maximal accuracy was achieved with score thresholds of 8 and higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively. At these thresholds, in the PZ, similar accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223) and radiologist 3 (88.5% vs 88.2%, P = .739) and greater accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008). In the TZ, accuracy was lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001), radiologist 2 (87.6% vs 92.6%, P = .002), and radiologist 3 (82.9% vs 91.2%, P < .001). For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032), and sensitivity was similar for radiologist 2 (78.0% vs 76.5, P = .467) and radiologist 3 (77.3% vs 81.1%, P = .125).Conclusion: Radiologists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale. (C) RSNA, 2013