Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales

Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, Sooah Kim, Ruth P. Lim, Nicole Hindman, Fang Ming Deng, James S. Babb, Samir S. Taneja

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)482-492
    Number of pages11
    JournalRadiology
    Volume269
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Nov 2013

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this