Suppr超能文献

前列腺磁共振成像的准确性:阅片者经验至关重要。

Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters.

作者信息

Kang Hyunseon C, Jo Nahyun, Bamashmos Anas Saeed, Ahmed Mona, Sun Jia, Ward John F, Choi Haesun

机构信息

Department of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

出版信息

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 May;27:53-60. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.004. Epub 2021 Mar 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the detection, image-guided biopsy, and active surveillance of prostate cancer. The accuracy of prostate MRI may differ based on factors including imaging technique, patient population, and reader experience.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the accuracy of prostate MRI varies with reader experience.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We rescored regions of interest from 194 consecutive patients who had undergone MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy. Original prostate MRI scans had been interpreted by one of 33 abdominal radiologists (AR group). More than 14 mo later, rescoring was performed by two blinded, prostate MRI radiologists (PR group). Likert scoring was used for both original MRI reports and rescoring.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) of prostate MRI was defined for the AR and PR groups. A Likert score of 4-5 was considered test positive and clinically significant prostate carcinoma (csPCa; Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥2) was considered outcome positive.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

MRI-positive lesions (Likert 4-5) scored by the PR group resulted in csPCa more frequently than those scored by the AR group (64.9% vs 39.3%). MRI-negative lesions (Likert 2-3) were more likely to result in a clinically insignificant biopsy (benign pathology or GGG 1) when scored by the PR versus the AR group (91.8% vs 76.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of MRI to detect csPCa were higher for the PR group than for the AR group (sensitivity 85.9% vs 70.7%; specificity 77.3% vs 46.8%). Overall diagnostic accuracy was higher for the PR group than for the AR group (80.1% vs 54.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of prostate MRI were higher for the PR group than for the AR group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We examined the accuracy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in two groups of radiologists. Experienced radiologists were more likely to detect clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI.

摘要

背景

前列腺磁共振成像(MRI)在前列腺癌的检测、图像引导活检及主动监测中的应用日益广泛。前列腺MRI的准确性可能因成像技术、患者群体及阅片者经验等因素而有所不同。

目的

确定前列腺MRI的准确性是否随阅片者经验而变化。

设计、设置与参与者:我们对194例接受MRI/超声融合活检的连续患者的感兴趣区域重新评分。最初的前列腺MRI扫描由33名腹部放射科医生之一解读(AR组)。14个多月后,由两名不知情的前列腺MRI放射科医生进行重新评分(PR组)。原始MRI报告及重新评分均采用李克特评分法。

结局测量与统计分析

定义AR组和PR组前列腺MRI的检测性能(敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值[PPV]和阴性预测值[NPV])。李克特评分为4 - 5分被视为检测阳性,临床显著性前列腺癌(csPCa; Gleason分级组[GGG]≥2)被视为结局阳性。

结果与局限性

PR组评分为MRI阳性的病变(李克特4 - 5分)导致csPCa的频率高于AR组(64.9%对39.3%)。PR组对MRI阴性病变(李克特2 - 3分)进行评分时,相比于AR组,更有可能导致临床意义不显著的活检结果(良性病理或GGG 1)(91.8%对76.6%)。PR组MRI检测csPCa的敏感性和特异性高于AR组(敏感性85.9%对70.7%;特异性77.3%对46.8%)。PR组的总体诊断准确性高于AR组(80.1%对54.6%)。

结论

PR组前列腺MRI的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV高于AR组。

患者总结

我们在两组放射科医生中检查了前列腺磁共振成像(MRI)的准确性。经验丰富的放射科医生更有可能在MRI上检测出临床显著性前列腺癌。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验