Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpreted by experts is a powerful tool for diagnosing prostate cancer. However, the generalizability of published results across radiologists of varying expertise has not been verified. OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in mpMRI reporting and diagnostic accuracy across radiologists of varying experience in routine clinical care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men who underwent mpMRI and MR-fusion biopsy between 2014-2016. Each MRI scan was read by one of nine radiologists using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) and was not re-read before biopsy. Biopsy histopathology was the reference standard. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were the PIRADS score distribution and diagnostic accuracy across nine radiologists. We evaluated the association between age, prostate-specific antigen, PIRADS score, and radiologist in predicting clinically significant cancer (Gleason ≥7) using multivariable logistic regression. We conducted sensitivity analyses for case volume and changes in accuracy over time. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We analyzed data for 409 subjects with 503 MRI lesions. While the number of lesions (mean 1.2 lesions/patient) did not differ across radiologists, substantial variation existed in PIRADS distribution and cancer yield. The significant cancer detection rate was 3-27% for PIRADS 3 lesions, 23-65% for PIRADS 4, and 40-80% for PIRADS 5 across radiologists. Some 13-60% of men with a PIRADS score of <3 on MRI harbored clinically significant cancer. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve varied from 0.69 to 0.81 for detection of clinically significant cancer. PIRADS score (p<0.0001) and radiologist (p=0.042) were independently associated with cancer in multivariable analysis. Neither individual radiologist volume nor study period impacted the results. MRI scans were not retrospectively re-read by all radiologists, precluding measurement of inter-observer agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable variability in PIRADS score assignment and significant cancer yield across radiologists. We advise internal evaluation of mpMRI accuracy before widespread adoption. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in routine clinical care. Diagnostic accuracy depends on the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and the radiologist.