Oncology| Volume 127, P68-73, May 2019

The Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation: Impact of the Individual Radiologist and Clinical Factors

Published:February 23, 2019DOI:



      To compare test performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detection of prostate cancer between individual radiologists using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and to identify clinical factors that may predict test performance.

      Materials and Methods

      We examined our database of consecutive men who received prostate mpMRI prior to biopsy between September 2014 and December 2016 (n = 459). Test performance (eg, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value) were defined with PI-RADS classification 4 or 5 considered test positive and Gleason score ≥7 on biopsy from any targeted core considered outcome positive. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify clinical variables that affect test performance.


      No significant differences in test performance were found among individual radiologists. Prior biopsy (odds ratio [OR] 0.10, P = .01), radiologist experience >500 prostate mpMRI (OR 0.18, P = .04), transition zone location (OR 0.10, P = .04), and posterior location (OR 0.04, P = .03) were predictors of diminished sensitivity. Location of the mpMRI lesion in the TZ was a predictor of improved specificity (OR 2.53, P = .04). Increasing age (OR 1.07, P <.01) and prostate-specific antigen (OR 1.10, P <.01) predicted increased PPV, while prior biopsy predicted decreased PPV (OR 0.50, P <.01).


      Although variation exists in test performance among individual radiologists using PI-RADS, significant differences were not observed. Additional prostate mpMRI experience was not beneficial in improving accuracy of interpretation. Nonmodifiable patient variables—including prostate lesion location, prior biopsy history, prostate-specific antigen, and age—are predictive of prostate mpMRI test performance.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777
        • Rastinehad AR
        • Turkbey B
        • Salami SS
        • et al.
        Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy.
        J Urol. 2014; 191: 1749-1754
        • Tompson JE
        • Moses D
        • Shnier R
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 67-74
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
        • Nassiri N
        • Natarajan S
        • Margolis DJ
        • Marks LS
        Targeted prostate biopsy: lessons learned midst the evolution of a disruptive technology.
        Urology. 2015; 86: 432-438
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Taneja SS
        Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 109-120
        • Wang RS
        • Kim EH
        • Vetter JM
        • et al.
        Determination of the role of negative magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in clinical practice: is biopsy still necessary?.
        Urology. 2017; 102: 190-197
        • Riney JC
        • Sarwani NE
        • Siddique S
        • Raman JD
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging: the truth lies in the eye of the beholder.
        Urol Oncol. 2018; 36 (159.e1-159.e5)
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Ginocchio LA
        • Cornfeld D
        • et al.
        Inter-observer reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multi-center study of six experienced prostate radiologists.
        Radiology. 2016; 280: 793-804
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Lim RP
        • Haghighi M
        • et al.
        Comparison of inter-reader reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System and Likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201: W612-W618
      1. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;30266-30263.

        • Kim EH
        • Weaver JK
        • Shetty AS
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging provides added value to the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator for patients with estimated risk of high grade prostate cancer less than or equal to 10%.
        Urology. 2017; 102: 183-189
        • Polanec S
        • Helbich TH
        • Bickel H
        • et al.
        Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v 1.
        Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85: 1125-1131
        • Tan A
        • Freeman DH
        • Goodwin JS
        • Freeman JL
        Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006; 100: 309-318
        • Theberge I
        • Chang SL
        • Vandal N
        • et al.
        Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106 (djt461)
        • Schieda N
        • Quon JS
        • Lim C
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma.
        Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84: 1843-1848
        • Ahmed HU
        • Kirham A
        • Arya M
        • et al.
        Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?.
        Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009; 6: 197-206
        • Weaver JK
        • Kim EH
        • Vetter JM
        • et al.
        Presence of magnetic resonance imaging suspicious lesion predicts Gleason 7 or greater prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients.
        Urology. 2016; 88: 119-124
        • Akin O
        • Sala E
        • Moskowitz CS
        • et al.
        Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging.
        Radiology. 2006; 239: 784-792
        • Hoeks CM
        • Hambrock T
        • Yakar D
        • et al.
        Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 207-217
        • Li H
        • Sugimura K
        • Kaji Y
        • et al.
        Conventional MRI capabilities in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the transition zone.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 186: 729-742
        • Lawrentschuk N
        • Haider MA
        • Daljeet N
        • et al.
        ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging.
        Brit J Urol. 2010; 105: 1231-1236
        • Siddiqui MM
        • Rais-Bahrami S
        • Turkbey B
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Catalona WJ
        • Richie JP
        • Ahmann FR
        • et al.
        Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: S200-S207
        • Schröder FH
        • van der Cruijsen-Koeter I
        • de Koning HJ
        • Vis AN
        • Hoedemaeker RF
        • Kranse R
        Prostate cancer detection at low prostate specific antigen.
        J Urol. 2000; 163: 806-812
        • Coley CM
        • Barry MJ
        • Fleming C
        • Mulley AG
        Early detection of prostate cancer. Part I: prior probability and effectiveness of tests.
        Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 394-406
        • Shoag JE
        • Mittal S
        • Hu JC
        Reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO trial.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 1795-1796
        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Bell KJL
        • Del Mar C
        • Wright G
        • Dickinson J
        • Glasziou P
        Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies.
        Int J Cancer. 2015; 137: 1249-1757