Interreader agreement of PI‐RADS v. 2 in assessing prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI: A study using whole‐mount histology as the standard of reference

BACKGROUND: Most studies assessing interreader agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADS v2) have used biopsy as the standard of reference, thus carrying the risk of not definitively noting all existent cancers. PURPOSE: To evaluate the interreader agreement in assessing prostate cancer (PCa) of PI-RADS v2, using whole-mount histology as the standard of reference. STUDY TYPE: Monocentric prospective cohort study. POPULATION: In all, 48 patients with biopsy-proven PCa referred for radical prostatectomy, undergoing staging multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) between May 2016 to February 2017. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: -weighted high resolution isotropic volume examination; THRIVE) ASSESSMENT: Three radiologists blinded to final histology (2-8 years of experience) analyzed mpMRI images independently, scoring imaging findings in accordance with PI-RADS v2. On a per-lesion basis, we calculated overall and pairwise interreader agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories, as well as assessing malignancy with categories ≥3 or ≥4, and stage ≥pT3. STATISTICAL TESTS: Cohen's kappa analysis of agreement. RESULTS: On 71 lesions found on histology, there was moderate agreement in assigning PI-RADS categories to all cancers (k = 0.53) and clinically significant cancers (csPCa) (k = 0.47). Assessing csPCa with PI-RADS ≥4 cutoff provided higher agreement than PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff (k = 0.63 vs. 0.57). Interreader agreement was higher between more experienced readers, with the most experienced one achieving the highest cancer detection rate (0.73 for csPCa using category ≥4). There was substantial agreement in assessing stage ≥pT3 (k = 0.72). DATA CONCLUSION: We found moderate to substantial agreement in assigning the PI-RADS v2 categories and assessing the spectrum of cancers found on whole-mount histology, with category 4 as the most reproducible cutoff for csPCa. Readers' experience influenced interreader agreement and cancer detection rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:546-555.