Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40785894›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Accuracy, intra-, and inter-radiologist variability of PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for clinically significant prostate cancer detection.

Haibo Ren, Yun Peng, Yixin Si, Yinquan Ye, Lianggeng Gong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Haibo RenDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yun PengDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yixin SiDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Yinquan Ye *Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Lianggeng Gong *Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) is widely used in prostate assessment, but the intra- and inter-radiologist agreement of the PI-RADS v2.1 sequences score and categories identified by radiologists from different hospitals remain uncertain. This study aimed to explore the accuracy, intra-, and inter-observer consistency of the PI-RADS in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) versus non-significant lesions. Methods: A total of 164 patients who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and were subsequently confirmed by biopsy pathology were retrospectively analyzed. PCa patients with a Gleason score ≥7 were classified into the clinically significant group, whereas prostatic hyperplasia and PCa with a Gleason score <7 were classified into the non-significant group. The lesions were independently assessed by 6 radiologists from 5 institutions via PI-RADS. The diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) score, T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) score, and PI-RADS category were recorded. The radiologists re-scored patients after one month. The performance of the PI-RADS category in distinguishing significant between non-significant lesions was evaluated via receiver operating curve (ROC) curve analysis. The kappa coefficient and Kendall's W coefficient (KW value) were used to assess the intra- and inter-observer agreement. Results: A total of 65 patients with clinically significant lesions and 99 patients with non-significant lesions were included. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the 6 radiologists in identifying clinically significant PCa using PI-RADS category were 0.915, 0.881, 0.863, 0.849, 0.833, and 0.884, respectively. The percentage of non-significant lesions ranged from 61.3% to 91.9% and 18.2% to 45.6% among the PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions, respectively. The kappa coefficients for the T2WI, DWI score, and PI-RADS category spanned from 0.408 to 0.763. The KW value of the T2WI score in the senior radiologist group was 0.279, whereas the KW values for the T2WI, DWI, and PI-RADS scores among all the readers were 0.199, 0.106, and 0.127, respectively. Conclusions: Radiologists can effectively identify clinically significant PCa via PI-RADS v2.1. There is a high proportion of non-significant lesions among PI-RADS 3-4. The intra-reproducibility of the scores is moderate to substantial. However, the inter-radiologist consistency is poor except for DWI scores among senior radiologists.

Indexed as

Clinically significant prostate cancer (clinically significant PCa)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)

Identifiers

PMID40785894
PMCPMC12332662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.