ArticlePloS one
Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2022Pooled it
- Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.European urology oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Assessment of Prostate MR Image and Predictive Value for Benign Prostate Disease among Different DWI Sequences.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Review
- Diffusion Restriction Comparison between Gleason 4 Fused Glands and Cribriform Glands within Patient Using Whole-Mount Prostate Pathology as Ground Truth.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Structured reporting in radiologic education - Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Textured-Based Deep Learning in Prostate Cancer Classification with 3T Multiparametric MRI: Comparison with PI-RADS-Based Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Can Prostate-Specific Antigen Density Be an Index to Distinguish Patients Who Can Omit Repeat Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging?Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Comparison of Urologist Satisfaction for Different Types of Prostate MRI Reports: A Large Sample Investigation.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Article
- Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 2.1 compared to version 2.0 for detection of peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Assessment of DCE Utility for PCa Diagnosis Using PI-RADS v2.1: Effects on Diagnostic Accuracy and Reproducibility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer.European radiology · 2019Review
- MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature.World journal of urology · 2019Review
- Applicability of readout-segmented echoplanar diffusion weighted imaging for prostate MRI.Medicine · 2019Article
- The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.Asian journal of urology · 2019Review
- Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019Article
- The role of gadolinium in magnetic resonance imaging for early prostate cancer diagnosis: A diagnostic accuracy study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Radio-pathomic Maps of Epithelium and Lumen Density Predict the Location of High-Grade Prostate Cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018Article
- Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.Radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObjective of our study was to determine the agreement between version 1 (v1) and v2 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy, their inter-observer agreement and practicability. MATERIAL AND
methodsmpMRI including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) of 54 consecutive patients, who subsequently underwent MRI-guided in-bore biopsy were re-analyzed according to PI-RADS v1 and v2 by two independent readers. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was assessed using ROC-curve analysis. Agreement between PI-RADS versions and observers was calculated and the time needed for scoring was determined.
resultsMRI-guided biopsy revealed PCa in 31 patients. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa was equivalent with both PI-RADS versions for reader 1 with sensitivities and specificities of 84%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 100%/74% (AUC = 0.92 95% CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v2. Reader 2 achieved similar diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity of 74%/91% (AUC = 0.88 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 81%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8-1]) for PI-RADS v2. Agreement between scores determined with different PI-RADS versions was good (reader 1: κ = 0.62, reader 2: κ = 0.64). Inter-observer agreement was moderate with PI-RADS v2 (κ = 0.56) and fair with v1 (κ = 0.39). The time required for building the PI-RADS score was significantly lower with PI-RADS v2 compared to v1 (24.7±2.3 s vs. 41.9±2.6 s, p<0.001).
conclusionAgreement between PI-RADS versions was high and both versions revealed high diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa. Due to better inter-observer agreement for malignant lesions and less time demand, the new PI-RADS version could be more practicable for clinical routine.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.