4.3 Article

Precision and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Journal

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 7, Pages 2535-2544

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-01970-z

Keywords

Prostate; BPH; Lobar classification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo validate the application of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for use in research and clinical management.MethodsTwo radiologists with 5 and 11years post-fellowship experience were trained in the lobar classification of BPH using an internally developed atlas of prostate anatomy with example MRI images edited by a third senior radiologist designated as the administrator of the study. A study population of 140 patients referred to a tertiary academic medical center with known or suspected prostate cancer was selected by the administrator to test the interrater reliability (IRR; precision) of the classification as well as accuracy of the two readers compared to the administrator as the gold standard. The intrarater reliability of repeat readings of the administrator was also examined. Percentage of agreement, proportion of agreement, and Cohen's were applied. This was a retrospective IRB-approved study.ResultsIRR (precision) between the two interpreting radiologists was 64% agreement, corresponding to unweighted of 0.52. Composite proportion of agreement across all BPH types (categories) for interpreting radiologists was 0.67. Observer accuracy was 62% agreement, unweighted 0.49, for observer 1 and 67%, unweighted 0.58, for observer 2. Intrarater reliability for the administrator was 87% agreement, unweighted 0.81 with composite proportion of agreement across all categories of 0.87.ConclusionsMRI lobar classification of BPH is a reproducible and reliable tool for research and clinical applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available