Advertisement

Commentary regarding the inter-reader reproducibility of PI-RADS version 2

  • 321 Accesses

  • 7 Citations

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

  2. 2.

    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

  3. 3.

    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 277:142818

  4. 4.

    Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, et al. (2016) Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.16151133

  5. 5.

    Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, et al. (2015) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6

  6. 6.

    Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152542

  7. 7.

    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(3):741–750

  8. 8.

    Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 269(2):482–492

  9. 9.

    Marks LS (2016) Some prostate cancers are invisible to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Br J Urol (in press)

  10. 10.

    Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731

  11. 11.

    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43(6):543–549

  12. 12.

    Shankar V, Bangdiwala SI (2014) Observer agreement paradoxes in 2x2 tables: comparison of agreement measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:100

  13. 13.

    Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E (1996) Behavior and interpretation of the kappa statistic: resolution of the two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 49(4):431–434

  14. 14.

    Berg WA, D’Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. (2002) Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 224(3):871–880

  15. 15.

    Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E (2009) Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 252(3):665–672

  16. 16.

    Siegel CL, McFarland EG, Brink JA, et al. (1997) CT of cystic renal masses: analysis of diagnostic performance and interobserver variation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(3):813–818

  17. 17.

    Karmazyn B, Tawadros A, Delaney LR, et al. (2015) Ultrasound classification of solitary renal cysts in children. J Pediatr Urol 11(3):149 e141–149 e146

  18. 18.

    Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: A Critical Look. AJR Am J Roentgenol. doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15765

  19. 19.

    Puech P, Randazzo M, Ouzzane A, et al. (2015) How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI? Curr Opin Urol 25(6):522–535

  20. 20.

    Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Huisman HJ (2015) Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 25(11):3187–3199

  21. 21.

    Niaf E, Lartizien C, Bratan F, et al. (2014) Prostate focal peripheral zone lesions: characterization at multiparametric MR imaging–influence of a computer-aided diagnosis system. Radiology 271(3):761–769

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Andrew B. Rosenkrantz.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Rosenkrantz: Royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers. Margolis: None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenkrantz, A.B., Margolis, D.J. Commentary regarding the inter-reader reproducibility of PI-RADS version 2. Abdom Radiol 41, 907–909 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0756-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Percent Agreement
  • Expert Radiologist
  • Double Reading
  • Clinical Adoption
  • Quality Assurance Method