Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of dual read in the setting of prostate MRI interpretation

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the utility of dual reader interpretation of prostate MRI in the evaluation/detection of prostate cancer, using the PI-RADS v2.1 scoring system.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study to assess the utility of dual reader interpretation for prostate MRI. All MRI cases compiled for analysis were accompanied with prostate biopsy pathology reports that included Gleason scores to correlate to the MRI PI-RADS v2.1 score, tissue findings and location of pathology within the prostate gland. To assess for dual reader utility, two fellowship trained abdominal imagers (each with > 5 years of experience) provided independent and concurrent PI-RADS v2.1 scores on all included MRI examinations, which were then compared to the biopsy proven Gleason scores.

Results

After application of inclusion criteria, 131 cases were used for analysis. The mean age of the cohort was 63.6 years. Sensitivity, specificity and positive/negative predictive values were calculated for each reader and concurrent scores. Reader 1 demonstrated 71.43% sensitivity, 85.39% specificity, 69.77% PPV and 86.36% NPV. Reader 2 demonstrated 83.33% sensitivity, 78.65% specificity, 64.81% PPV and 90.91% NPV. Concurrent reads demonstrated 78.57% sensitivity, 80.9% specificity, 66% PPV and 88.89% NPV. There was no statistically significant difference between the individual readers or concurrent reads (p = 0.79).

Conclusion

Our results highlight that dual reader interpretation in prostate MRI is not needed to detect clinically relevant tumor and that radiologists with experience and training in prostate MRI interpretation establish acceptable sensitivity and specificity marks on PI-RADS v2.1 assessment.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer: Prostate Cancer Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

  2. Cancer of the Prostate - Cancer Stat Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html

  3. Brock, Marko et al. “Detecting Prostate Cancer.” Deutsches Arzteblatt international vol. 112,37 (2015): 605–11. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0605

  4. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998 Apr;51(4):525-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00002-8. PMID: 9586600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006 May;49(5):820-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.007. Epub 2005 Dec 22. PMID: 16439050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging:, Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF, Allen BC, Davis BJ, Froemming AT, Fulgham PF, Hosseinzadeh K, Porter C, Sahni VA, Schuster DM, Showalter TN, Venkatesan AM, Verma S, Wang CL, Remer EM, Eberhardt SC. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Prostate Cancer-Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5S):S245-S257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.026.

  7. Zhen, L., Liu, X., Yegang, C. et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 19, 1244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6434-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update. Radiographics. 2016 Sep-Oct;36(5):1354–72. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150234.

  9. Alqahtani, S., Wei, C., Zhang, Y. et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scoring system. Sci Rep 10, 7722 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64693-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Nair A, Screaton NJ, Holemans JA, Jones D, Clements L, Barton B, Gartland N, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Field JK, Hansell DM, Devaraj A. The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z.

  11. Agrawal A, Koundinya DB, Raju JS, Agrawal A, Kalyanpur A. Utility of contemporaneous dual read in the setting of emergency teleradiology reporting. Emerg Radiol. 2017 Apr;24(2):157-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1465-3. Epub 2016 Nov 18. PMID: 27858233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Westphalen, Antonio C., et al. “Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of Pi-Rads for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel.” Radiology, vol. 296, no. 1, 2020, pp. 76–84., https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190646.

  13. Giganti, Francesco et al. “The Evolution of MRI of the Prostate: The Past, the Present, and the Future.” AJR. American journal of roentgenology vol. 213,2 (2019): 384–396. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20796

  14. Sonn, Geoffrey A et al. “Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists.” European urology focus vol. 5,4 (2019): 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010

  15. Pickersgill, Nicholas A et al. “The Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation: Impact of the Individual Radiologist and Clinical Factors.” Urology vol. 127 (2019): 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.035

  16. Akin, Oguz et al. “Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer.” European radiology vol. 20,4 (2010): 995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1625-x

  17. Lauritzen, Peter Mæhre et al. “Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports.” BMJ quality & safety vol. 25,8 (2016): 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004536

  18. Geijer, Håkan, and Mats Geijer. “Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.” Insights into imaging vol. 9,3 (2018): 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Garcia-Reyes, Kirema et al. “Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis.” Abdominal imaging vol. 40,1 (2015): 134–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0197-7

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Nassier Harfouch

  2. Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health, 475 Seaview Ave, Staten Island, NY, 10305, USA

    Steven Peti, Richa Sharma, Jerel Chacko, Morris Hayim & Gail Yarmish

  3. Department of Radiology, Tufts Medical Center, 755 Washington St 4th Floor, Boston, MA, 02111, USA

    Gregory Emmanuel

Authors
  1. Nassier Harfouch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Peti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richa Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jerel Chacko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory Emmanuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Morris Hayim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gail Yarmish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nassier Harfouch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial disclosures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harfouch, N., Peti, S., Sharma, R. et al. Utility of dual read in the setting of prostate MRI interpretation. Abdom Radiol 48, 1395–1400 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-03853-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-03853-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation