Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters

• Published in: European urology open science (Online) Vol. 27; pp. 53 - 60
• Main Authors: Kang, Hyunseon C., Jo, Nahyun, Bamashmos, Anas Saeed, Ahmed, Mona, Sun, Jia, Ward, John F., Choi, Haesun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-05-2021; Elsevier
• Subjects: Likert scoring system; Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy; Prostate Cancer; Prostate magnetic resonance imaging; Reader experience, Double read; Prostate magnetic resonance imaging; Reader experience, Double read; Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy; Prostate cancer; Likert scoring system; Double read; Reader experience
• ISSN: 2666-1683; 2666-1691; 2666-1683
• DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.004

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.
To determine whether the accuracy of prostate MRI varies with reader experience.
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.
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.
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%).
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of prostate MRI were higher for the PR group than for the AR group.
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.
The utility of prostate magnetic resonance imaging to accurately detect clinically significant prostate cancer depends on the radiologist’s experience. Both histopathological feedback and volume of interpretations are likely important for the development of expertise.