Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 5498–5506 | Cite as

Multiparametric MRI of the bladder: inter-observer agreement and accuracy with the Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) at a single reference center

  • Giovanni Barchetti
  • Giuseppe Simone
  • Isabella Ceravolo
  • Vincenzo Salvo
  • Riccardo Campa
  • Francesco Del Giudice
  • Ettore De Berardinis
  • Dorelsa Buccilli
  • Carlo Catalano
  • Michele Gallucci
  • James W. F. Catto
  • Valeria PanebiancoEmail author
Urogenital

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate accuracy and inter-observer variability using Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) for discrimination between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

Methods

Between September 2017 and July 2018, 78 patients referred for suspected bladder cancer underwent multiparametric MRI of the bladder (mpMRI) prior to transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). All mpMRI were reviewed by two radiologists, who scored each lesion according to VI-RADS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each VI-RADS cutoff. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to evaluate the performance of mpMRI. The Ƙ statistics was used to estimate inter-reader agreement.

Results

Seventy-five patients were included in the final analysis, 53 with NMIBC and 22 with MIBC. Sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 89% for reader 1 and 82% and 85% for reader 2 respectively when the cutoff VI-RADS > 2 was used to define MIBC. At the same cutoff, PPV and NPV were 77% and 96% for reader 1 and 69% and 92% for reader 2. When the cutoff VI-RADS > 3 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 82% and 94% for reader 1 and 77% and 89% for reader 2. Corresponding PPV and NPV were 86% and 93% for reader 1 and 74% and 91% for reader 2. Area under curve was 0.926 and 0.873 for reader 1 and 2 respectively. Inter-reader agreement was good for the overall score (Ƙ = 0.731).

Conclusions

VI-RADS is accurate in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC. Inter-reader agreement is overall good.

Key Points

• Traditionally, the local staging of bladder cancer relies on transurethral resection of bladder tumor.

• However, transurethral resection of bladder tumor carries a significant risk of understaging a cancer; therefore, more accurate, faster, and non-invasive staging techniques are needed to improve outcomes.

• Multiparametric MRI has proved to be the best imaging modality for local staging; therefore, its use in suitable patients has the potential to expedite radical treatment when necessary and non-invasive diagnosis in patients with poor fitness.

Keywords

Urinary bladder neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Neoplasm grading Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Neoplasm staging 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AUC

Area under curve

BCa

Bladder cancer

DCE-MRI

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

MIBC

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer

mpMRI

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate

NMIBC

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

ROC

Receiver operating characteristics

TURBT

Transurethral resection of bladder tumor

VI-RADS

Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Valeria Panebianco.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6117_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3750 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cumberbatch MGK, Jubber I, Black PC et al (2018) Epidemiology of bladder cancer: a systematic review and contemporary update of risk factors in 2018. Eur Urol 74:784–795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marcos-Gragera R, Mallone S, Kiemeney LA et al (2015) Urinary tract cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: results of the population-based study EUROCARE-5. Eur J Cancer 51:2217–2230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soukup V, Capoun O, Cohen D et al (2017) Prognostic performance and reproducibility of the 1973 and 2004/2016 World Health Organization grading classification systems in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a European Association of Urology non-muscle invasive bladder cancer guidelines panel syst. Eur Urol 72:801–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Witjes JA, Comperat E, Cowan NC et al (2014) EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2013 guidelines. Eur Urol 65:778–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Babjuk M, Böhle A, Burger M et al (2017) EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2016. Eur Urol 71:447–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gendy R, Delprado W, Brenner P et al (2016) Repeat transurethral resection for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a contemporary series. BJU Int 117(Suppl):54–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klaassen Z, Kamat AM, Kassouf W et al (2018) Treatment strategy for newly diagnosed T1 high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma: new insights and updated recommendations. Eur Urol 74:597–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Pol CB, Sahni VA, Eberhardt SC et al (2018) ACR appropriateness criteria® pretreatment staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 15:S150–S159Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gandhi N, Krishna S, Booth CM, et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for tumour staging of bladder cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 122:744–753.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14366
  11. 11.
    Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of muscle-invasiveness of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 95:46–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Panebianco V, Narumi Y, Altun E et al (2018) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur Urol 74:294-306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029
  13. 13.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277:741–750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang H, Pui MH, Guo Y et al (2015) Multiparametric 3-T MRI for differentiating low-versus high-grade and category T1 versus T2 bladder urothelial carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:330–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panebianco V, De Berardinis E, Barchetti G et al (2017) An evaluation of morphological and functional multi-parametric MRI sequences in classifying non-muscle and muscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur Radiol 27(9):3759–3766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Ito M et al (2009) Urinary bladder cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging--accuracy for diagnosing T stage and estimating histologic grade. Radiology 251:112–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang H-J, Pui MH, Guan J et al (2016) Comparison of early submucosal enhancement and tumor stalk in staging bladder urothelial carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:797–803.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16283
  19. 19.
    Huang L, Kong Q, Liu Z et al (2018) The diagnostic value of MR imaging in differentiating T staging of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Radiology 286:502–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shariat SF, Palapattu GS, Karakiewicz PI et al (2007) Discrepancy between clinical and pathologic stage: impact on prognosis after radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 51:137–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hollenbeck BK, Ye Z, Dunn RL et al (2009) Provider treatment intensity and outcomes for patients with early-stage bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:571–580CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Pol CB, Shinagare AB, Tirumani SH et al (2018) Bladder cancer local staging: multiparametric MRI performance following transurethral resection. Abdom Radiol (NY).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1449-0
  23. 23.
    Necchi A, Messina A, Briganti A (2018) Re: Valeria Panebianco, Yoshifumi Narumi, Ersan Altun, et al Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: development of VI-RADS (Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System). Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.0
  24. 24.
    Crozier J, Papa N, Perera M et al (2018) Comparative sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities in staging bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2439-8

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Barchetti
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Simone
    • 2
  • Isabella Ceravolo
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Salvo
    • 1
  • Riccardo Campa
    • 1
  • Francesco Del Giudice
    • 3
  • Ettore De Berardinis
    • 3
  • Dorelsa Buccilli
    • 1
  • Carlo Catalano
    • 1
  • Michele Gallucci
    • 2
  • James W. F. Catto
    • 4
  • Valeria Panebianco
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and PathologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of UrologyRegina Elena National Cancer InsituteRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Gynecological-Obstetric and Urological SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.Academic Urology UnitUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations