An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625
Jonas Wallström, Erik Thimansson, Jim Andersson, Mathias Karlsson, Sophia Zackrisson, Ola Bratt, Fredrik Jäderling
{"title":"An online national quality assessment survey of prostate MRI reading: interreader variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS classification.","authors":"Jonas Wallström, Erik Thimansson, Jim Andersson, Mathias Karlsson, Sophia Zackrisson, Ola Bratt, Fredrik Jäderling","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All Swedish radiology departments were invited to participate in an external quality assurance of prostate MRI reading. Ten prostate MRI cases were selected by an expert panel to reflect common findings. Readers measured whole gland volume (ellipsoid formula method) and assigned a PI-RADS score in a web-based PACS with full clinical functionality. Expert consensus was used as reference standard. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of volume measurements and PSA density. Reader agreement was assessed using percentages and kappa scores. A feedback document was sent to all participants upon completion of the quality assurance program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three radiologists representing 17 departments read at least 7 out of 10 cases. The median difference in prostate volume assessment compared to the reference volume for the 10 cases ranged from -23 mL to + 6 mL. Per case agreement ranged from 33 % to 86 % for the assigned PI-RADS score and from 35 % to 98 % for PI-RADS 1-3 versus PI-RADS 4-5. Interreader agreement was moderate with a median kappa score of 0.53 (IQR 0.48-0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This online model for national quality assurance programs was feasible. Rather large per-case reader variations in prostate volume assessment and PI-RADS scoring were shown. To reduce variability in clinical practice, systematic interreader comparisons should be encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":"14 ","pages":"100625"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed.

Methods: All Swedish radiology departments were invited to participate in an external quality assurance of prostate MRI reading. Ten prostate MRI cases were selected by an expert panel to reflect common findings. Readers measured whole gland volume (ellipsoid formula method) and assigned a PI-RADS score in a web-based PACS with full clinical functionality. Expert consensus was used as reference standard. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of volume measurements and PSA density. Reader agreement was assessed using percentages and kappa scores. A feedback document was sent to all participants upon completion of the quality assurance program.

Results: Forty-three radiologists representing 17 departments read at least 7 out of 10 cases. The median difference in prostate volume assessment compared to the reference volume for the 10 cases ranged from -23 mL to + 6 mL. Per case agreement ranged from 33 % to 86 % for the assigned PI-RADS score and from 35 % to 98 % for PI-RADS 1-3 versus PI-RADS 4-5. Interreader agreement was moderate with a median kappa score of 0.53 (IQR 0.48-0.62).

Conclusion: This online model for national quality assurance programs was feasible. Rather large per-case reader variations in prostate volume assessment and PI-RADS scoring were shown. To reduce variability in clinical practice, systematic interreader comparisons should be encouraged.

前列腺MRI读数的在线国家质量评估调查:前列腺体积测量和PI-RADS分类的解读器变异性。
背景:高质量的前列腺MRI评估是临床实践和筛查的基础。在前列腺体积测量和PI-RADS评估方面,缺乏国家级的变异性数据。需要制定质量保证的方法。方法:邀请瑞典所有放射科参与前列腺MRI读数的外部质量保证。专家小组选择了10例前列腺MRI病例,以反映常见的发现。读者测量整个腺体体积(椭球公式法),并在具有完整临床功能的基于网络的PACS中分配PI-RADS评分。采用专家共识作为参考标准。描述性统计用于显示体积测量和PSA密度的分布。使用百分比和kappa分数评估读者同意度。在质量保证项目完成后,向所有参与者发送了一份反馈文件。结果:来自17个科室的43名放射科医生至少阅读了10例病例中的7例。10例前列腺体积评估与参考体积的中位差异范围为-23 mL至+ 6 mL。每例PI-RADS评分的一致性范围为33 %至86 %,PI-RADS 1-3与PI-RADS 4-5的一致性范围为35 %至98 %。解读者的一致性中等,kappa评分中位数为0.53 (IQR为0.48-0.62)。结论:该在线模式在国家质量保证项目中是可行的。在前列腺体积评估和PI-RADS评分方面显示出相当大的个案差异。为了减少临床实践中的可变性,应该鼓励系统的解读比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信