ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Inter-reader agreement of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version v2.1 for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy in Interpreting mpMRI of the Prostate: a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2022Pooled it
- An Assessment of PI-RADS v2.1: Inter-Reader Agreement, Diagnostic Accuracy, and the Added Value of PSA Density in Prostate Cancer Prediction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate MRI: current applications, ongoing debates, and synergies with advanced technologies-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 as a predictor of clinically significant and aggressive prostate cancer: a radical prostatectomy-validated study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence in MRI-Guided Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Addressing Key Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An overview of utilizing artificial intelligence in localized prostate cancer imaging.Expert review of medical devices · 2025Review
- Interactive training workshop to improve prostate mpMRI knowledge: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Intraobserver and Interobserver Agreement between Six Radiologists Describing mpMRI Features of Prostate Cancer Using a PI-RADS 2.1 Structured Reporting Scheme.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The potential of a nomogram combined PI-RADS v2.1 and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to reduce unnecessary biopsies in prostate cancer diagnostics.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Innovations in prostate cancer: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Diffusion and quantification of diffusion of prostate cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.1, in comparison with v. 2.
methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. 77 consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v. 2.1 and v. 2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated.
results228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cut-off ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v. 2.1 than v. 2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509
conclusionOur study suggests that the PI-RADS v. 2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v. 2. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.
Indexed as
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.