Abstract:IMPORTANCE: The Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) scoring guidelines were developed to address the substantial variation in interpretation and reporting of prostate cancer (PCa) multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) results, and subsequent updates have sought to further improve inter-reader reliability. Nonetheless, the variability of PI-RADS scoring in real-world settings may represent a continuing challenge to the widespread standardization of prostate mpMRI and limit its overall clinical benefit.OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in mpMRI interpretation and reporting of PCa, we evaluated the discrepancies in PI-RADS scoring between community practices and a tertiary academic care center.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 262 mpMRI studies from nonacademic facilities, reinterpreted by radiologists at our institution between January 2016 and July 2022. Results of targeted MRI fusion biopsy were identified for 193 of these patients, totaling 302 lesions. PI-RADS scoring from both community and academic interpreters were recorded in addition to presence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) on pathological analysis of targeted cores.MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was inter-reader reliability via intraclass correlation (ICC) and the kappa statistic. We also assessed the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS scoring for detecting csPCa for both cohorts via receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis and compared these findings using paired-sample area difference under curve analysis.RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement and reliability of PI-RADS scoring per lesion was generally poor (absolute agreement ICC = 0.393, 95% CI: 0.288-0.488; consistency ICC = 0.407, 95% CI: 0.308-0.497; kappa = 0.336, 95% CI: 0.267-0.406). Reliability results from studies obtained after the publication of PI-RADSv2.1 were similar to those of the overall analysis. No agreement was observed in the subgroup of lesions scored as PIRADS 3 by community interpreters. No statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy was observed between cohorts (ROC area under curve [AUC]: 0.759 vs. 0.785, respectively; P = 0.337). PI-RADS 3 was determined to be the optimal cutoff for detecting clinically significant disease in both cohorts.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that mpMRI diagnostic accuracy for detecting csPCa is not significantly different between academic and community practices. However, significantly poor reliability of mpMRI was observed between cohorts, suggesting the risk of introducing practice variation for community prostate cancer management. Variability, particularly for PI-RADS 3 lesions, can lead to inconsistent biopsy recommendations, which may result in missed csPCa or unnecessary biopsies.

A Public Health Perspective on Radiologists Interpretation Volumes

Shift Volume Directly Impacts Neuroradiology Error Rate at a Large Academic Medical Center: The Case for Volume Limits

Errors in Radiology: A Standard Review

The legal implications of error in radiology

Balancing High Clinical Volumes and Non-RVU-generating Activities in Radiology, Part I: The Current Landscape

Optimizing Analysis, Visualization, and Navigation of Large Image Data Sets: One 5000-Section CT Scan Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Australian Dentists' Knowledge of the Consequences of Interpretive Errors in Dental Radiographs and Potential Mitigation Measures

Dissonance Between Law Courts and the Science of Visual Perception in Medical Imaging

Radiologists Make More Errors Interpreting Off-Hours Body CT Studies during Overnight Assignments as Compared with Daytime Assignments

Inter-reader reliability and diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS scoring between academic and community care networks: How wide is the gap?

An initial exploration of factors that may impact radiographer performance in reporting mammograms

Initial interpretation scores of screening mammograms and cancer detection in BreastScreen Norway

Between Always and Never: Evaluating Uncertainty in Radiology Reports Using Natural Language Processing

Incorporation of Eye-Tracking and Gaze Feedback to Characterize and Improve Radiologist Search Patterns of Chest X-rays: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads

Direct reporting of results to patients: the future of radiology?

Volumetric Analysis: Effect on Diagnosis and Management of Indeterminate Solid Pulmonary Nodules in Routine Clinical Practice

Quantitative analysis of the level of readability of online emergency radiology-based patient education resources

Diagnostic error and bias in the department of radiology: a pictorial essay

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review