ArticleInsights into imaging2023
Characterization of high-grade prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI: assessment of PI-RADS version 2.1 and version 2 descriptors across 21 readers with varying experience (MULTI study).
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Focal radiation therapies for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinical evidence and outcomes.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of central review and MRI image quality on prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy decision-making in referred patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Predictors of false-positive results in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 4 lesions.Prostate international · 2026Article
- Multicenter Study on Integrating Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Antigen Density for Risk-Adapted Biopsy Strategy in a South Korean Cohort.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- A prospective comparison of the diagnostic performance of a high b-value diffusion-weighted image-guided score versus PI-RADS v2.1 for transition zone prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Developing an interpretable clinical-radiomics machine learning model using whole transition zone MRI analysis for improving diagnosis of transition zone prostate cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Prospective evaluation of PI-RADSv2.1 using multiparametric and biparametric MRI for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer based on MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The established chest MRI score for cystic fibrosis can be applied to contrast agent-free matrix pencil decomposition functional MRI: a multireader analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Prostate-MRI reporting should be done with the aid of AI systems: Pros.European radiology · 2024Article
- Zone-specific computer-aided diagnosis system aimed at characterizing ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance images: evaluation in a cohort of patients on active surveillance.World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors across readers with varying experience.
methodsTwenty-one radiologists (7 experienced (≥ 5 years) seniors, 7 less experienced seniors and 7 juniors) assessed 240 'predefined' lesions from 159 pre-biopsy multiparametric prostate MRIs. They specified their location (peripheral, transition or central zone) and size, and scored them using PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors. They also described and scored 'additional' lesions if needed. Per-lesion analysis assessed the 'predefined' lesions, using targeted biopsy as reference; per-lobe analysis included 'predefined' and 'additional' lesions, using combined systematic and targeted biopsy as reference. Areas under the curve (AUCs) quantified the performance in diagnosing clinically significant cancer (csPCa; ISUP ≥ 2 cancer). Kappa coefficients (κ) or concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) assessed inter-reader agreement.
resultsAt per-lesion analysis, inter-reader agreement on location and size was moderate-to-good (κ = 0.60-0.73) and excellent (CCC ≥ 0.80), respectively. Agreement on PI-RADSv2.1 scoring was moderate (κ = 0.43-0.47) for seniors and fair (κ = 0.39) for juniors. Using PI-RADSv2.1, juniors obtained a significantly lower AUC (0.74; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.70-0.79) than experienced seniors (0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84; p = 0.008) but not than less experienced seniors (0.74; 95%CI 0.70-0.78; p = 0.75). As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 downgraded 17 lesions/reader (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-29), of which 2 (IQR: 1-3) were csPCa; it upgraded 4 lesions/reader (IQR: 2-7), of which 1 (IQR: 0-2) was csPCa. Per-lobe analysis, which included 60 (IQR: 25-73) 'additional' lesions/reader, yielded similar results.
conclusionsExperience significantly impacted lesion characterization using PI-RADSv2.1 descriptors. As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 tended to downgrade non-csPCa lesions, but this effect was small and variable across readers.
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.