Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32306078›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Manual prostate cancer segmentation in MRI: interreader agreement and volumetric correlation with transperineal template core needle biopsy.

Marc R Liechti, Urs J Muehlematter, Aurelia F Schneider, Daniel Eberli, Niels J Rupp, Andreas M Hötker, Olivio F Donati, Anton S Becker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marc R LiechtiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Urs J MuehlematterInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Aurelia F SchneiderInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel EberliDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Niels J RuppDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Andreas M HötkerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Olivio F DonatiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anton S BeckerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. anton.becker@usz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer lesion segmentation on multiparametric MR images (mpMRI). The secondary aim was to compare tumor volume estimates between MRI segmentation and transperineal template saturation core needle biopsy (TTSB).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone mpMRI of the prostate at our institution and who had received TTSB within 190 days of the examination. Seventy-eight cancer lesions with Gleason score of at least 3 + 4 = 7 were manually segmented in T2-weighted images by 3 radiologists and 1 medical student. Twenty lesions were also segmented in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) series. First, 20 volumetric similarity scores were computed to quantify interreader agreement. Second, manually segmented cancer lesion volumes were compared with TTSB-derived estimates by Bland-Altman analysis and Wilcoxon testing.

resultsInterreader agreement across all readers was only moderate with mean T2 Dice score of 0.57 (95%CI 0.39-0.70), volumetric similarity coefficient of 0.74 (0.48-0.89), and Hausdorff distance of 5.23 mm (3.17-9.32 mm). Discrepancy of volume estimate between MRI and TTSB was increasing with tumor size. Discrepancy was significantly different between tumors with a Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. higher grade tumors (0.66 ml vs. 0.78 ml; p = 0.007). There were no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentations.

conclusionsWe found at best moderate interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI. Additionally, our study suggests a systematic discrepancy between the tumor volume estimate by MRI segmentation and TTSB core length, especially for large and high-grade tumors. KEY POINTS: • Manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI shows moderate interreader agreement. • There are no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentation agreements. • There is a systematic difference between volume estimates derived from biopsy and MRI.

Indexed as

Neoplasm GradingAgedBiopsyBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPerineumProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesBiopsyMagnetic resonance imagingObserver variationProstate cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.