Multiplanar versus axial measurement of prostate lesion size: agreement and impact on PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Thitinan Chulroek, Ratchaya Ariyasaksakul
{"title":"Multiplanar versus axial measurement of prostate lesion size: agreement and impact on PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation","authors":"Thitinan Chulroek,&nbsp;Ratchaya Ariyasaksakul","doi":"10.1007/s00261-026-05484-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate whether measurement of prostate lesion size on sagittal or coronal imaging planes influences PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation compared with axial measurement.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this single-center retrospective study, 261 prostate lesions categorized as PI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent subsequent targeted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy or prostatectomy. Lesion size was measured as maximal axial diameter (MAD) and maximal coronal or sagittal diameter (MCSD). Lesions were subsequently categorized according to PI-RADS v2.1 using these measurements. The agreement between MAD and MCSD was assessed using a Bland–Altman analysis. Measurement reliability and interobserver agreement were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement in PI-RADS categorization for clinically significant prostate cancer.</p><h3>Result</h3><p>Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated minimal bias and strong agreement between MAD and MCSD measurements for the whole prostate (mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% limits of agreement − 2.62 to 3.19 mm), with similar results in both the peripheral and transition zones. Intraclass correlation analysis showed excellent reliability between measurements (ICC = 0.93). Agreement in PI-RADS categorization between MAD and MCSD was almost perfect (κ = 0.931). Reclassification from PI-RADS 4 to 5 occurred in 1.74% of lesions when using MCSD, and all reclassified lesions demonstrated clinically significant prostate cancer on histopathology.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>MAD and MCSD measurements of prostate lesion size demonstrate excellent agreement and highly concordant PI-RADS categorization. Although reclassification is uncommon, evaluation of the sagittal or coronal planes may provide additional value for selected lesions with craniocaudal elongation, where the maximal tumor extent may not be fully represented on axial images.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":"51 10","pages":"5127 - 5135"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-026-05484-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether measurement of prostate lesion size on sagittal or coronal imaging planes influences PI-RADS v2.1 categorization and histopathologic correlation compared with axial measurement.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective study, 261 prostate lesions categorized as PI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent subsequent targeted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy or prostatectomy. Lesion size was measured as maximal axial diameter (MAD) and maximal coronal or sagittal diameter (MCSD). Lesions were subsequently categorized according to PI-RADS v2.1 using these measurements. The agreement between MAD and MCSD was assessed using a Bland–Altman analysis. Measurement reliability and interobserver agreement were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement in PI-RADS categorization for clinically significant prostate cancer.

Result

Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated minimal bias and strong agreement between MAD and MCSD measurements for the whole prostate (mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% limits of agreement − 2.62 to 3.19 mm), with similar results in both the peripheral and transition zones. Intraclass correlation analysis showed excellent reliability between measurements (ICC = 0.93). Agreement in PI-RADS categorization between MAD and MCSD was almost perfect (κ = 0.931). Reclassification from PI-RADS 4 to 5 occurred in 1.74% of lesions when using MCSD, and all reclassified lesions demonstrated clinically significant prostate cancer on histopathology.

Conclusion

MAD and MCSD measurements of prostate lesion size demonstrate excellent agreement and highly concordant PI-RADS categorization. Although reclassification is uncommon, evaluation of the sagittal or coronal planes may provide additional value for selected lesions with craniocaudal elongation, where the maximal tumor extent may not be fully represented on axial images.

前列腺病变大小的多平面与轴向测量:对PI-RADS v2.1分类和组织病理学相关性的一致性和影响
目的:评价矢状面和冠状面前列腺病变大小测量与轴向测量相比对PI-RADS v2.1分型及组织病理学相关性的影响。方法:在这项单中心回顾性研究中,261例PI-RADS分类为4或5的前列腺病变随后接受了靶向MRI/TRUS融合活检或前列腺切除术。病变大小测量为最大轴向直径(MAD)和最大冠状或矢状直径(MCSD)。病变随后根据PI-RADS v2.1使用这些测量进行分类。使用Bland-Altman分析评估MAD和MCSD之间的一致性。使用类内相关系数(ICC)评估测量可靠性和观察者间一致性。Kappa统计用于评估临床显著性前列腺癌PI-RADS分类的一致性。结果:Bland-Altman分析显示,整个前列腺的MAD和MCSD测量结果偏差最小,一致性强(平均差0.28 mm; 95%一致限- 2.62至3.19 mm),外周和过渡区结果相似。类内相关分析显示,测量值之间具有良好的信度(ICC = 0.93)。MCSD与MAD在PI-RADS分类上几乎完全一致(κ = 0.931)。使用MCSD时,1.74%的病变从PI-RADS 4到5重新分类,所有重新分类的病变在组织病理学上均显示有临床意义的前列腺癌。结论:MAD和MCSD测量的前列腺病变大小表现出极好的一致性和高度一致的PI-RADS分类。虽然重新分类并不常见,但矢状面或冠状面评估可能为颅趾延伸病变提供额外的价值,其中最大肿瘤范围可能无法在轴向图像上完全体现。
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
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
期刊介绍: Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书