American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 158, 559-562, Copyright © 1992 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease

ML Schiebler, BC Yankaskas, C Tempany, CE Spritzer, MD Rifkin, HM Pollack, P Holtz and EA Zerhouni
Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104.

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate confined to the gland (stage B) are candidates for a potentially curative surgical procedure (radical retropubic prostatectomy). However, patients with adenocarcinoma that penetrates the capsule or invades the seminal vesicles (stage C) are no longer considered good candidates for surgical cure of their disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of four radiologists to detect stage C disease on MR images and to evaluate interobserver variability. One hundred consecutive MR studies of the prostate were reviewed independently by four radiologists to determine whether the cancer was stage C (capsule penetration or seminal vesicle invasion by tumor). A radical prostatectomy was performed in each case, and careful histologic assessment was made of the prostatic capsule and seminal vesicles for any evidence of stage C disease. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (true-positive + true-negative/100 patients) in detecting stage C disease were calculated for each of the four readers. Four receiver-operating-characteristic curves were generated and compared by means of the univariate z score. Percentage agreement was calculated for five specific areas of the prostate on MR images, and observations made by the best reader were compared with the other three to help determine interreader variability. The results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in detecting stage C disease ranged from .24 to .61 (mean, .48) and .49 to .79 (mean, .66), respectively. The accuracy of MR imaging ranged from .47 to .61 (mean, .55). The univariate z score test showed that one of the readers significantly differed from the other three. The average percentage agreement between that reader and the other three was 70% for the five separate anatomic regions. This study shows that considerable interobserver variation exists in the interpretation of MR images for staging cancer of the prostate. The average accuracy among four radiologists in determining the presence of stage C adenocarcinoma of the prostate from MR images was only slightly above a chance guess at .55.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. McKenna, F. V. Coakley, A. C. Westphalen, S. Zhao, Y. Lu, E. M. Webb, B. Pickett, M. Roach III, and J. Kurhanewicz Prostate Cancer: Role of Pretreatment MR in Predicting Outcome after External-Beam Radiation Therapy--Initial Experience Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 141 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1173 - 1178. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Sala, O. Akin, C. S. Moskowitz, H. F. Eisenberg, K. Kuroiwa, N. M. Ishill, B. Rajashanker, P. T. Scardino, and H. Hricak Endorectal MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Seminal Vesicle Invasion: Diagnostic Accuracy and Multivariate Feature Analysis Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 929 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Futterer, S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, T. W. J. Scheenen, G. J. Jager, C. A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, J. A. Witjes, and J. O. Barentsz Prostate Cancer: Local Staging at 3-T Endorectal MR Imaging--Early Experience Radiology, December 1, 2005; 238(1): 184 - 191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Futterer, M. R. Engelbrecht, H. J. Huisman, G. J. Jager, C. A. Hulsbergen-van De Kaa, J. A. Witjes, and J. O. Barentsz Staging Prostate Cancer with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Endorectal MR Imaging prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Experienced versus Less Experienced Readers Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 541 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mullerad, H. Hricak, L. Wang, H.-N. Chen, M. W. Kattan, and P. T. Scardino Prostate Cancer: Detection of Extracapsular Extension by Genitourinary and General Body Radiologists at MR Imaging Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 140 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Sella, L. H. Schwartz, P. W. Swindle, C. N. Onyebuchi, P. T. Scardino, H. I. Scher, and H. Hricak Suspected Local Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy: Endorectal Coil MR Imaging Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 379 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Potential Legal Ramifications of Whole-Body CT Screening: Taking a Peek into Pandora's Box Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 317 - 322. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Scheidler, H. Hricak, D. B. Vigneron, K. K. Yu, D. L. Sokolov, L. R. Huang, C. J. Zaloudek, S. J. Nelson, P. R. Carroll, and J. Kurhanewicz Prostate Cancer: Localization with Three-dimensional Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging-Clinicopathologic Study Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 473 - 480. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. K. Yu, J. Scheidler, H. Hricak, D. B. Vigneron, C. J. Zaloudek, R. G. Males, S. J. Nelson, P. R. Carroll, and J. Kurhanewicz Prostate Cancer: Prediction of Extracapsular Extension with Endorectal MR Imaging and Three-dimensional Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 481 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text]