From the Department of Radiology (G.H.L., A.C., I.K., R.E., A.Y., C.B.H., G.S.K., A.O.), Sanford J. Grossman Center of Excellence in Prostate Imaging and Image Guided Therapy (G.H.L., A.C., R.E., A.Y., C.B.H., G.S.K., A.O.), and Department of Public Health Sciences (M.G.), University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637.
Radiology. 2022 Nov;305(2):399-407. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211895. Epub 2022 Jul 26.
Background Variability of acquisition and interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) persists despite implementation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 due to the range of reader experience and subjectivity of lesion characterization. A quantitative method, hybrid multidimensional MRI (HM-MRI), may introduce objectivity. Purpose To compare performance, interobserver agreement, and interpretation time of radiologists using mpMRI versus HM-MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods In this retrospective analysis, men with prostatectomy or MRI-fused transrectal US biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer underwent mpMRI (triplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging) and HM-MRI (with multiple echo times and value combinations) from August 2012 to February 2020. Four readers with 1-20 years of experience interpreted mpMRI and HM-MRI examinations independently, with a 4-week washout period between interpretations. PI-RADS score, lesion location, and interpretation time were recorded. mpMRI and HM-MRI interpretation time, interobserver agreement (Cronbach alpha), and performance of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis were compared for each radiologist with use of bootstrap analysis. Results Sixty-one men (mean age, 61 years ± 8 [SD]) were evaluated. Per-patient AUC was higher for HM-MRI for reader 4 compared with mpMRI (AUCs for readers 1-4: 0.61, 0.71, 0.59, and 0.64 vs 0.66, 0.60, 0.50, and 0.46; = .57, .20, .32, and .04, respectively). Per-patient specificity was higher for HM-MRI for readers 2-4 compared with mpMRI (specificity for readers 1-4: 48%, 78%, 48%, and 46% vs 37%, 26%, 0%, and 7%; = .34, < .001, < .001, and < .001, respectively). Diagnostic performance improved for the reader least experienced with HM-MRI, reader 4 (AUC, 0.64 vs 0.46; = .04). HM-MRI interobserver agreement (Cronbach alpha = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.82, 0.92]) was higher than that of mpMRI (Cronbach alpha = 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.52]; α > .60 indicates reliability; = .03). HM-MRI mean interpretation time (73 seconds ± 43 [SD]) was shorter than that of mpMRI (254 seconds ± 133; = .03). Conclusion Radiologists had similar or improved diagnostic performance, higher interobserver agreement, and lower interpretation time for clinically significant prostate cancer with hybrid multidimensional MRI than multiparametric MRI. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Turkbey in this issue.
背景 尽管实施了前列腺成像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)版本 2.1,但由于读者经验的差异和病变特征的主观性,前列腺多参数 MRI(mpMRI)的采集和解读仍然存在差异。一种定量方法,即混合多维 MRI(HM-MRI),可能会提高客观性。目的 比较使用 mpMRI 与 HM-MRI 诊断临床显著前列腺癌的放射科医生的表现、观察者间一致性和解读时间。材料与方法 本回顾性分析纳入了 2012 年 8 月至 2020 年 2 月间接受前列腺切除术或 MRI 融合经直肠超声活检证实为前列腺癌的男性患者,他们接受了 mpMRI(三平面 T2 加权、扩散加权和动态对比增强成像)和 HM-MRI(具有多个回波时间和 值组合)检查。4 位具有 1-20 年经验的读者独立解读 mpMRI 和 HM-MRI 检查,两次解读之间有 4 周的洗脱期。记录 PI-RADS 评分、病变位置和解读时间。使用 bootstrap 分析比较每位放射科医生的 mpMRI 和 HM-MRI 解读时间、观察者间一致性(Cronbach α)和受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)分析的表现。结果 共评估了 61 名男性(平均年龄,61 岁±8[标准差])。与 mpMRI 相比,HM-MRI 对读者 4 的每位患者 AUC 更高(读者 1-4 的 AUC 分别为 0.61、0.71、0.59 和 0.64 与 0.66、0.60、0.50 和 0.46; =.57、.20、.32 和.04)。与 mpMRI 相比,HM-MRI 对读者 2-4 的每位患者特异性更高(读者 1-4 的特异性分别为 48%、78%、48%和 46%与 37%、26%、0%和 7%; =.34、 <.001、 <.001 和 <.001)。对 HM-MRI 经验最少的读者 4,诊断性能有所提高(AUC,0.64 与 0.46; =.04)。HM-MRI 的观察者间一致性(Cronbach α=0.88[95%CI:0.82,0.92])高于 mpMRI(Cronbach α=0.26[95%CI:0.10,0.52];α>.60 表示可靠性; =.03)。HM-MRI 的平均解读时间(73 秒±43[标准差])短于 mpMRI(254 秒±133; =.03)。结论 与 mpMRI 相比,放射科医生使用混合多维 MRI 对临床显著前列腺癌的诊断性能相似或有所提高,观察者间一致性更高,解读时间更短。