Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review

  • New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To present the latest evidence related to interobserver agreement and accuracy; evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of use; and outline opportunities for improvement and future development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

Recent Findings

Our review of currently available evidence suggests that recent improvements to the PI-RADS system with PI-RADS v2.1 slightly improved interobserver agreement, with generally high sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of clinically significant PCa. Recent evidence additionally demonstrates substantial improvement in diagnostic specificity with PI-RADS v2.1 compared with PI-RADS v2. However, results of studies examining the comparative performance of v2.1 are limited by small sample sizes and retrospective cohorts, potentially introducing selection bias. Some studies suggest a substantial improvement between v2.1 and v2, while others report no statistically significant difference. Additionally, in PI-RADS v2.1, the interpretation and reporting of certain findings remain subjective, particularly for category 2 lesions, and reader experience continues to vary significantly. These factors further contribute to a remaining degree of interobserver variability and findings of improved performance among more experienced readers.

Summary

PI-RADS v2.1 appears to show at least minimal improvement in interobserver agreement, diagnostic performance, and both sensitivity and specificity, with greater improvements seen among more experienced readers. However, given the decrescent nature of these improvements and the limited power of all studies examined, the clinical impact of this progress may be marginal. Despite improvements in PI-RADS v2.1, practitioner experience in interpreting mpMRI of the prostate remains the most important factor in prostate cancer detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):63–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lomas DJ, Ahmed HU. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(6):372–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang Y, et al. Development and internal validation of PI-RADs v2-based model for clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Turkbey B, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–51. This paper describes important changes to the PI-RADS system and details key improvements to the PI-RADS v2 framework within PI-RADS v2.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hassanzadeh E, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(1):278–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tewes S, et al. Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Purysko AS, et al. PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Purysko AS, et al. PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update. Radiographics. 2016;36(5):1354–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. Radiology. 2017;283(1):119–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spektor M, Mathur M, Weinreb JC. Standards for MRI reporting-the evolution to PI-RADS v 2.0. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):355–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrett T, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):841–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Walker SM, Turkbey B. PI-RADSv2.1: Current status. Turk J Urol. 2021;47(Supp. 1):S45–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Xu L, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2.1 and PI-RADS version 2 regarding interreader variability and diagnostic accuracy for transition zone prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(12):4133–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coskun M, et al. Interreader agreement in different PI-RADS systems in multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging: A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADSv2 and v2.1. J Contemp Med. 2021;11(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Bhayana R, et al. PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: Interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance in peripheral and transition zone lesions among six radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;217(1):141–51. This paper directly compares PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 in the PZ and TZ regions of the prostate with regards to interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. Due to the use of both systems to evaluate lesions, this study provides a unique assessment of clinically significant discrepancies between systems.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hotker AM, et al. Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0239975.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wei CG, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(5):1247–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tamada T, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2019;121:108–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim HS, et al. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 20. and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone. Korean J Radiol. 2021;22(7):1100–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. • Urase Y, et al. Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2021; 20201434. This paper is the first to evaluate the clinical value of PI-RADS v2.1 in PZ and TZ region assessment coupled with the use of radical prostatectomy specimens as a reference standard. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance is analyzed as is the effect of experience level to highlight necessary updates to the PI-RADS framework.

  22. Byun J, et al. Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52(2):577–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brembilla G, et al. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(6):3383–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rudolph MM, et al. Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15982.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Linhares Moreira AS, et al. How does PI-RADS v2.1 impact patient classification? A head-to-head comparison between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1. Acta Radiol. 2021;62(6):839–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen Y, et al. Cutoff Values of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 Score in Men With Prostate-specific Antigen Level 4 to 10 ng/mL: Importance of Lesion Location. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021.

  27. Park KJ, et al. Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021;54(1):103–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Arvind Annamalai & Judy N. Fustok

  2. Department of Radiology, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Jesus Beltran-Perez, Ahmed T. Rashad & Benjamin L. Triche

  3. Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Louis S. Krane

Authors
  1. Arvind Annamalai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judy N. Fustok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesus Beltran-Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed T. Rashad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louis S. Krane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benjamin L. Triche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin L. Triche.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have disclosures or conflicts of interest to report.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Annamalai, A., Fustok, J.N., Beltran-Perez, J. et al. Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review. Curr Urol Rep 23, 1–10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01084-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation