Department of Radiology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI.
Department of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Sep;219(3):453-460. doi: 10.2214/AJR.22.27421. Epub 2022 Mar 23.
Understanding the effect of specific experience in prostate MRI interpretation on diagnostic performance would help inform the minimum interpretation volume to establish proficiency. The purpose of this article is to assess for an association between increasing experience in prostate MRI interpretation and change in radiologist-level PPVs for PI-RADS version 2 (v2) categories 3, 4, and 5. This retrospective study included prostate MRI examinations performed between July 1, 2015, and August 13, 2021, that were assigned a PI-RADS v2 category of 3, 4, or 5 and with an MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy available as the reference standard. All examinations were among the first 100-200 prostate MRI examinations interpreted using PI-RADS v2 by fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists. Radiologists received feedback through a quality assurance program. Radiologists' experience levels were classified using progressive subsets of 50 interpreted examinations. Change with increasing experience in distribution of individual radiologists' whole-gland PPVs for Gleason sum score 7 or greater prostate cancer, stratified by PI-RADS category, was assessed by hierarchic linear mixed models. The study included 1300 prostate MRI examinations in 1037 patients (mean age, 66 ± 7 [SD] years), interpreted by eight radiologists (median, 13 years of postfellow-ship experience; range, 5-22 years). Aggregate PPVs were 20% (68/340) for PI-RADS category 3, 49% (318/652) for category 4, and 71% (220/308) for category 5. Interquartile ranges (IQRs) of PPVs overlapped for category 4 (51%; IQR, 42-60%) and category 5 (70%; IQR, 54-75%) for radiologists' first 50 examinations. IQRs of PPVs did not overlap between categories of greater experience; for example, at the 101-150 examination level, PPV for category 3 was 24% (IQR, 20-29%), category 4 was 55% (IQR, 54-63%), and category 5 was 81% (IQR, 77-82%). Hierarchic modeling showed no change in radiologists' absolute PPV with increasing experience (category 3, = .27; category 4, = .71; category 5, = .38). Absolute PPVs at specific PI-RADS categories did not change during radiologists' first 200 included examinations. However, resolution of initial overlap in IQRs indicates improved precision of PPVs after the first 50 examinations. If implementing a minimum training threshold for fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists, 50 prostate MRI examinations may be sufficient in the context of a quality assurance program with feedback.
了解特定前列腺 MRI 解读经验对诊断性能的影响有助于为建立能力所需的最低解读量提供信息。本文的目的是评估在前列腺 MRI 解读经验增加的情况下,PI-RADS 版本 2(v2)类别 3、4 和 5 的放射科医生级别的阳性预测值(PPV)是否会发生变化。这项回顾性研究包括 2015 年 7 月 1 日至 2021 年 8 月 13 日期间进行的前列腺 MRI 检查,这些检查的 PI-RADS v2 类别为 3、4 或 5,并且有 MRI-超声融合活检作为参考标准。所有检查均为接受 fellowship培训的腹部放射科医生使用 PI-RADS v2 解读的前 100-200 例前列腺 MRI 检查之一。放射科医生通过质量保证计划获得反馈。根据 50 次连续解读检查的经验水平,对放射科医生的整体腺体 PPV 进行分类。按 PI-RADS 类别分层,评估了 PI-RADS 类别 3 的 Gleason 总和评分为 7 或更高的前列腺癌的个体放射科医生的全腺体 PPV 分布随经验增加而变化,采用分层线性混合模型进行评估。该研究纳入了 1037 例患者的 1300 例前列腺 MRI 检查(平均年龄 66±7[SD]岁),由 8 名放射科医生进行解读(中位数为 13 年的专科培训后经验;范围为 5-22 年)。总体 PPV 为 PI-RADS 类别 3 为 20%(68/340),类别 4 为 49%(318/652),类别 5 为 71%(220/308)。PI-RADS 类别 4(51%;四分位距[IQR],42-60%)和类别 5(70%;IQR,54-75%)中放射科医生前 50 次检查的 PPV 重叠。经验更丰富的类别之间的 PPV 四分位距不重叠;例如,在第 101-150 次检查水平,类别 3 的 PPV 为 24%(IQR,20-29%),类别 4 为 55%(IQR,54-63%),类别 5 为 81%(IQR,77-82%)。分层模型显示,放射科医生的绝对 PPV 随经验增加而无变化(类别 3, =.27;类别 4, =.71;类别 5, =.38)。在放射科医生的前 200 次纳入检查中,特定 PI-RADS 类别的绝对 PPV 并未发生变化。然而,首次 50 次检查后 IQR 的分辨率提高表明 PPV 的精度提高。如果为接受专科培训的腹部放射科医生实施最低培训阈值,在有反馈的质量保证计划的背景下,50 次前列腺 MRI 检查可能就足够了。