An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625
Jonas Wallström, Erik Thimansson, Jim Andersson, Mathias Karlsson, Sophia Zackrisson, Ola Bratt, Fredrik Jäderling
{"title":"An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.","authors":"Jonas Wallström, Erik Thimansson, Jim Andersson, Mathias Karlsson, Sophia Zackrisson, Ola Bratt, Fredrik Jäderling","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All Swedish radiology departments were invited to participate in an external quality assurance of prostate MRI reading. Ten prostate MRI cases were selected by an expert panel to reflect common findings. Readers measured whole gland volume (ellipsoid formula method) and assigned a PI-RADS score in a web-based PACS with full clinical functionality. Expert consensus was used as reference standard. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of volume measurements and PSA density. Reader agreement was assessed using percentages and kappa scores. A feedback document was sent to all participants upon completion of the quality assurance program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three radiologists representing 17 departments read at least 7 out of 10 cases. The median difference in prostate volume assessment compared to the reference volume for the 10 cases ranged from -23 mL to + 6 mL. Per case agreement ranged from 33 % to 86 % for the assigned PI-RADS score and from 35 % to 98 % for PI-RADS 1-3 versus PI-RADS 4-5. Interreader agreement was moderate with a median kappa score of 0.53 (IQR 0.48-0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This online model for national quality assurance programs was feasible. Rather large per-case reader variations in prostate volume assessment and PI-RADS scoring were shown. To reduce variability in clinical practice, systematic interreader comparisons should be encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":"14 ","pages":"100625"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed.

Methods: All Swedish radiology departments were invited to participate in an external quality assurance of prostate MRI reading. Ten prostate MRI cases were selected by an expert panel to reflect common findings. Readers measured whole gland volume (ellipsoid formula method) and assigned a PI-RADS score in a web-based PACS with full clinical functionality. Expert consensus was used as reference standard. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of volume measurements and PSA density. Reader agreement was assessed using percentages and kappa scores. A feedback document was sent to all participants upon completion of the quality assurance program.

Results: Forty-three radiologists representing 17 departments read at least 7 out of 10 cases. The median difference in prostate volume assessment compared to the reference volume for the 10 cases ranged from -23 mL to + 6 mL. Per case agreement ranged from 33 % to 86 % for the assigned PI-RADS score and from 35 % to 98 % for PI-RADS 1-3 versus PI-RADS 4-5. Interreader agreement was moderate with a median kappa score of 0.53 (IQR 0.48-0.62).

Conclusion: This online model for national quality assurance programs was feasible. Rather large per-case reader variations in prostate volume assessment and PI-RADS scoring were shown. To reduce variability in clinical practice, systematic interreader comparisons should be encouraged.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
期刊最新文献
An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification. Deep learning enabled near-isotropic CAIPIRINHA VIBE in the nephrogenic phase improves image quality and renal lesion conspicuity. Multidisciplinary quantitative and qualitative assessment of IDH-mutant gliomas with full diagnostic deep learning image reconstruction. Role of pre-procedure CCTA in predicting failed percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions Enhancing mortality prediction in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: Radiomics and supervised machine learning on non-contrast computed tomography
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1