Wen Jing, Ji Yugang, Han Jing, Shen Xiaocui, Qiu Yi
Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng, China.
The First People's Hospital of Yancheng, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Yancheng, China.
Front Oncol. 2022 Sep 29;12:1013941. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1013941. eCollection 2022.
We aimed to systematically assess the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version (PI-RADS) v2.1 for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).
We included studies reporting inter-reader agreement of different radiologists that applied PI-RADS v2.1 for the detection of PCa. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed with the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. The summary estimates of the inter-reader agreement were pooled with the random-effect model and categorized (from slight to almost perfect) according to the kappa () value. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore various clinical settings.
A total of 12 studies comprising 2475 patients were included. The pooled inter-reader agreement for whole gland was =0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.73), and for transitional zone (TZ) lesions was =0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.72). There was substantial heterogeneity presented throughout the studies ( = 95.6%), and meta-regression analyses revealed that only readers' experience (<5 years vs. ≥5 years) was the significant factor associated with heterogeneity (P<0.01). In studies providing head-to-head comparison, there was no significant difference in inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and v2.0 for both the whole gland (0.64 vs. 0.57, =0.37), and TZ (0.61 vs. 0.59, =0.81).
PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement among radiologists for whole gland and TZ lesions. However, the difference in agreement between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 was not significant for the whole gland or the TZ.
我们旨在系统评估前列腺影像报告和数据系统第2.1版(PI-RADS v2.1)在检测前列腺癌(PCa)方面的阅片者间一致性。
我们纳入了报告不同放射科医生应用PI-RADS v2.1检测PCa的阅片者间一致性的研究。采用报告可靠性和一致性研究指南对纳入研究进行质量评估。阅片者间一致性的汇总估计值采用随机效应模型合并,并根据kappa(κ)值进行分类(从轻微到几乎完美)。进行了多项亚组分析和meta回归以探索各种临床情况。
共纳入12项研究,涉及2475例患者。全腺的汇总阅片者间一致性κ=0.65(95%CI 0.56-0.73),移行区(TZ)病变的κ=0.62(95%CI 0.51-0.72)。整个研究中存在显著的异质性(I²=95.6%),meta回归分析显示只有阅片者的经验(<5年与≥5年)是与异质性相关的显著因素(P<0.01)。在提供直接比较的研究中,PI-RADS v2.1和v2.0在全腺(0.64对0.57,P=0.37)和TZ(0.61对0.59,P=0.81)的阅片者间一致性上无显著差异。
PI-RADS v2.1在放射科医生对全腺和TZ病变的阅片者间显示出较高的一致性。然而,PI-RADS v2.0和v2.1在全腺或TZ的一致性差异不显著。