Diagnostic Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement of PI-RADS Version 2 and Version 2.1 for the Detection of Transition Zone Prostate Cancers

Abstract

<b>BACKGROUND.</b> PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced a number of key changes to the assessment of transition zone (TZ) lesions. <b>OBJECTIVE.</b> The purpose of this study was to evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detecting TZ prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) by use of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 among radiologists with different levels of experience. <b>METHODS.</b> This retrospective study included 355 biopsy-naïve patients who from January 2017 to March 2020 underwent prostate MRI that showed a TZ lesion and underwent subsequent biopsy. PCa was diagnosed in 93 patients (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group 1, <i>n</i> = 34; ISUP grade group ≥ 2, <i>n</i> = 59) and non-cancerous lesions in 262 patients. Five radiologists with varying experience in prostate MRI scored lesions using PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 in sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with kappa and Kendall <i>W</i> statistics. ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate performance in detection of TZ PCa and csPCa. <b>RESULTS.</b> Interobserver agreement among all readers was higher for PI-RADS v2.1 than for PI-RADS v2 (mean weighted κ = 0.700 vs 0.622; Kendall <i>W</i> = 0.805 vs 0.728; <i>p</i> = .03). The pooled AUC values for detecting TZ PCa and csPCa were higher among all readers using PI-RADS v2.1 (0.866 vs 0.827 for TZ PCa; 0.929 vs 0.899 for TZ csPCa; <i>p</i> < .001). For detecting TZ PCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 86.9%, 79.4%, and 75.4% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 79.4%, 71.8%, and 73.8% for PI-RADS v2. For detecting TZ csPCa, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 84.8%, 90.9%, and 89.9% among all readers for PI-RADS v2.1 compared with 81.4%, 89.9%, and 88.5% for PI-RADS v2. Reader 1, who had the least experience, had the lowest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (78.0%, 89.2%, and 87.3%). Reader 5, who had the most experience, had the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (88.1%, 92.9%, and 92.1%) in detecting csPCa. <b>CONCLUSION.</b> PI-RADS v2.1 had better interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy than PI-RADS v2 for evaluating TZ lesions. Reader experience continues to affect the performance of prostate MRI interpretation with PI-RADS v2.1. <b>CLINICAL IMPACT.</b> PI-RADS v2.1 is more accurate and reproducible than PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of TZ PCa.