Evaluating the impact of reader experience on PI-RADS 3 of version 2.1 scoring concordance in multiparametric prostate MRI: a single-center analysis.
2/5 보강
TL;DR
Three assigned radiologists with different experience levels achieved generally poor inter‑reader agreement using the PI-RADS version 2.1 guideline, and varying expertise did not significantly influence PI-RADS 3 evaluations.
OpenAlex 토픽 ·
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
MRI in cancer diagnosis
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Three assigned radiologists with different experience levels achieved generally poor inter‑reader agreement using the PI-RADS version 2.1 guideline, and varying expertise did not significantly influen
- Sensitivity 86.97%
- Specificity 56.3%
APA
Mingze He, R. Т. Rzayev, et al. (2026). Evaluating the impact of reader experience on PI-RADS 3 of version 2.1 scoring concordance in multiparametric prostate MRI: a single-center analysis.. Abdominal radiology (New York), 51(5), 2499-2509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-05207-0
MLA
Mingze He, et al.. "Evaluating the impact of reader experience on PI-RADS 3 of version 2.1 scoring concordance in multiparametric prostate MRI: a single-center analysis.." Abdominal radiology (New York), vol. 51, no. 5, 2026, pp. 2499-2509.
PMID
40996515
Abstract
[PURPOSE] PI-RADS 3 lesions remain a "grey-zone" with an equivocal category on prostate mpMRI, complicating biopsy decisions and treatment strategies. This study aimed to investigate how radiologist experience affects the interpretation of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 3 of version 2.1.
[METHODS] A retrospective study involved three radiologists of different experience levels independently evaluating mpMRI images with PI-RADS 3 scores and confirmed pathological outcomes. From January 2023 to April 2025, 673 patient cases were reviewed. Excluding cases with prior interventions, non-PI-RADS 3 scores, or lacking pathological confirmation, 133 patients were analyzed. Inter-reader reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic (k), and correlations between PI-RADS and Gleason scores were analyzed with Kendall's tau (t). Diagnostic performance metrics including the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated.
[RESULTS] Median k score among all radiologist pairs was 0.149. The correlation between PI-RADS and Gleason scores was weakly positive but not statistically significant (t = 0.197). Senior Reader 2 demonstrated the highest AUC (0.748), accuracy (63.2%), PPV (48.2%), NPV (88.0%), and sensitivity (86.97%). Expert Reader 1 had the highest specificity (56.3%).
[CONCLUSION] Three assigned radiologists with different experience levels achieved generally poor inter‑reader agreement using the PI‑RADS version 2.1 guideline, and varying expertise did not significantly influence PI-RADS 3 evaluations. Future work should refine interpretation flows, adjunct decision rules, test weighted agreement statistics, and validate these findings in larger, multicenter cohorts.
[METHODS] A retrospective study involved three radiologists of different experience levels independently evaluating mpMRI images with PI-RADS 3 scores and confirmed pathological outcomes. From January 2023 to April 2025, 673 patient cases were reviewed. Excluding cases with prior interventions, non-PI-RADS 3 scores, or lacking pathological confirmation, 133 patients were analyzed. Inter-reader reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic (k), and correlations between PI-RADS and Gleason scores were analyzed with Kendall's tau (t). Diagnostic performance metrics including the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated.
[RESULTS] Median k score among all radiologist pairs was 0.149. The correlation between PI-RADS and Gleason scores was weakly positive but not statistically significant (t = 0.197). Senior Reader 2 demonstrated the highest AUC (0.748), accuracy (63.2%), PPV (48.2%), NPV (88.0%), and sensitivity (86.97%). Expert Reader 1 had the highest specificity (56.3%).
[CONCLUSION] Three assigned radiologists with different experience levels achieved generally poor inter‑reader agreement using the PI‑RADS version 2.1 guideline, and varying expertise did not significantly influence PI-RADS 3 evaluations. Future work should refine interpretation flows, adjunct decision rules, test weighted agreement statistics, and validate these findings in larger, multicenter cohorts.
MeSH Terms
Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Reproducibility of Results; Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Sensitivity and Specificity; Clinical Competence; Observer Variation; Prostate; Radiology Information Systems
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)
- Beyond Rationality: Information Overload and Biased Perceptions of Lung Cancer Screening Among Middle-Aged Adults.
- Quantification of Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targets in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
- In situ reprogramming of tumor associated macrophages with versatile nano-epigenetic inhibitor for lung cancer therapy.
- Patient-derived tumor organoids for new drug development: promises and challenges.
- A two-step scoring model incorporating visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio and systemic immunoinflammatory index for predicting cytokine release syndrome severity in patients with gastric cancer receiving Claudin18.2-targeted CAR-T cell therapy.