Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Inter-reader Agreement of the Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation Scoring System

Abstract

Background and objective: Focal therapy (FT) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer (PCa), notably reducing treatment-related morbidities. However, post-treatment anatomical changes present significant challenges for surveillance using current imaging techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-reader agreement and efficacy of the Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on post-FT multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Methods: ), and the system's efficacy in predicting in-field recurrence of csPCa, with a PI-FAB score cutoff of 3. Additional diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy were also evaluated. Key findings and limitations: = 0.56). Both radiologists achieved sensitivity of 93% in detecting csPCa, although specificity, PPVs, NPVs, and accuracy varied. Conclusions and clinical implications: The PI-FAB scoring system exhibited high sensitivity with moderate inter-reader agreement in detecting in-field recurrence of csPCa. Despite promising results, its low specificity and PPV necessitate further refinement. These findings underscore the need for larger studies to validate the clinical utility of PI-FAB, potentially aiding in standardizing post-treatment surveillance. Patient summary: Focal therapy has emerged as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer, but limitations in current imaging techniques present significant challenges for post-treatment surveillance. The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system showed high sensitivity for detecting in-field recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, its low specificity and positive predictive value necessitate further refinement. Larger, more comprehensive studies are needed to fully validate its clinical utility.