RONALDO HUEB BARONI

Índice h a partir de 2011
10
ResearcherID
ORCID
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
LIM/44 - Laboratório de Ressonância Magnética em Neurorradiologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina

Filtros

Limpar filtros

Configurações

Revista / Livro: Academic Radiology ×

Resultados de Busca

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • article 23 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Interobserver Agreement and Positivity of PI-RADS Version 2 Among Radiologists with Different Levels of Experience
    (2019) MUSSI, Thais Caldara; YAMAUCHI, Fernando Ide; TRIDENTE, Cassia Franco; TACHIBANA, Adriano; TONSO, Victor Martins; RECCHIMUZZI, Debora Rachello; LEDO, Layra Ribeiro de Souza; LUZ, Daniel Calich; MARTINS, Tatiana; BARONI, Ronald Hueb
    Rationale and Objectives: To evaluate interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 category among radiologists with different levels of experience. The secondary objective was to evaluate the positivity for significant cancer among each category (splitting category 4 into two) and among different lesion sizes. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board and ethics comitee approved retrospective study. Eight radiologists with different levels of experienced in prostatic magnetic resonance imaging-two more experienced, four with intermediate experience, and two abdominal radiology fellows-interpreted 160 lesions. Reference standard was fusion-targeted biopsy. Percentage agreement, k coefficients, and analysis concordance were used. Results: Coefficient of concordance according to categories was 0.71 considering both zones, 0.72 for peripheral zone (PZ) and 0.44 for peripheral zone (17). Agreement for PI-RADS score of 3 or greater was 0.48 in PZ and 0.57 in TZ. Tumor positivity rates were 54.3% and 66.0% for PI-RADS 3 + 1 and 4 for PZ, respectively; and 25.0 and 49.2% for PI-RADS 3 + 1 and 4 for TZ, respectively (p < 0.001 in both analysis). Lesions <10, 10-14, and >= 15 mm had 55.3%, 74.6%, and 93.5% of positivity rates for cancer in PZ (p = 0.002 and <0.001) and 26.7%, 56.5%, and 59.6% in TZ, respectively (p = 0.245 and 0.632). Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2 were 76%, 72%, and 74% for PZ; and 76%, 69%, and 71% for TZ, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows that PI-RADS v2 has overall good interobserver agreement among radiologists with different levels of experience. PI-RADS category 3 + 1 showed lower positivity rates for significant cancer compared to category 4. Lastly, lesions 10-14 mm has similar positivity rates compared to >= 15 mm for TZ lesions.