From the Departments of Radiology (P.R.S., R.K.K., M.M.A., W.R.M., N.E.C., M.M., M.D.S., M.S.D.) and Urology (M.S.D.), Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, B1-D530H, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; and Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich (T.D.J.).
Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):158-163. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172619. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
Purpose To assess the impact of clinical history on the maximum Prostate Imaging Recording and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) score assigned to multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included 120 consecutively selected multiparametric prostate MR imaging studies performed between November 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Sham clinical data in four domains (digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen level, plan for biopsy, prior prostate cancer history) were randomly assigned to each case by using a balanced orthogonal design. Six fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the sham data, actual patient age, and each examination while they were blinded to interreader scoring, true clinical data, and histologic findings. Readers were told the constant sham histories were true, believed the study to be primarily investigating interrater agreement, and were asked to assign a maximum PI-RADS v2 score to each case. Linear regression was performed to assess the association between clinical variables and maximum PI-RADS v2 score designation. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were obtained to compare interreader scoring. Results Clinical information had no significant effect on maximum PI-RADS v2 scoring for any of the six readers (P = .09-.99, 42 reader-variable pairs). Distributions of maximum PI-RADS v2 scores in the research context were similar to the distribution of the scores assigned clinically and had fair-to-excellent pairwise interrater agreement (ICC range: 0.53-0.76). Overall interrater agreement was good (ICC: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.57, 0.71). Conclusion Clinical history does not appear to be a substantial bias in maximum PI-RADS v2 score assignment. This is potentially important for clinical nomograms that plan to incorporate PI-RADS v2 score and clinical data into their algorithms (ie, PI-RADS v2 scoring is not confounded by clinical data).
评估临床病史对前列腺多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)Prostate Imaging Recording and Data System(PI-RADS)版本 2(v2)最大评分的影响。
本回顾性队列研究纳入了 2016 年 11 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间连续选择的 120 例前列腺 mpMRI 检查。采用平衡正交设计,为每个病例随机分配 4 个领域(直肠指检、前列腺特异性抗原水平、活检计划、前列腺癌史)的虚假临床数据。6 名接受过 fellowship 培训的腹部放射科医生在对虚假数据、实际患者年龄和每项检查进行独立评估时,对读者间评分、真实临床数据和组织学结果均不知情。告知读者恒定的虚假病史是真实的,研究主要是为了调查读者间的一致性,并要求他们为每个病例分配最大 PI-RADS v2 评分。采用线性回归评估临床变量与最大 PI-RADS v2 评分之间的关系。获取组内相关系数(ICC)以比较读者间的评分。
对于 6 名读者中的任何一位,临床信息对最大 PI-RADS v2 评分均无显著影响(P 值范围:0.09 至 0.99,42 对读者-变量)。在研究背景下,最大 PI-RADS v2 评分的分布与临床分配的评分分布相似,读者间的评分具有良好至极好的一致性(ICC 范围:0.53 至 0.76)。总体读者间的一致性较好(ICC:0.64;95%置信区间:0.57,0.71)。
临床病史似乎不是最大 PI-RADS v2 评分赋值的重要偏倚。这对于计划将 PI-RADS v2 评分和临床数据纳入其算法的临床列线图(即 PI-RADS v2 评分不受临床数据的干扰)非常重要。