Diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System for malignant adnexal masses

2017 ◽  
Vol 137 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tan Zhang ◽  
Fangxuan Li ◽  
Juntian Liu ◽  
Sheng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Adnexal Masses

scholarly journals The diagnostic performance of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) in adnexal masses

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 398-398
Author(s):  
Wen Guo ◽  
Xiuhe Zou ◽  
Hanyue Xu ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Yunuo Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Adnexal Masses

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 20201434
Author(s):  
Yasuyo Urase ◽  
Yoshiko Ueno ◽  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Keitaro Sofue ◽  
Satoru Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Data System ◽  
Transition Zones ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
3.0 T ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Interreader Agreement

Objectives: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1, in comparison with v2. Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v2.1 and v2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. Results 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cutoff ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v2.1 than v2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cutoff ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v2.1 than v2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v2.1 was higher than with v2 (TZ, 0.826–0.907 vs 0.788–0.856; PZ, 0.857–0.919 vs 0.853–0.902). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v2. Advances in knowledge: PI-RADS v2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Consistency of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2

2018 ◽  
Vol 131 (14) ◽  
pp. 1666-1673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zan Ke ◽  
Liang Wang ◽  
Xiang-De Min ◽  
Zhao-Yan Feng ◽  
Zhen Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Prostate Imaging

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Agreement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Zhou ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Linyao Du ◽  
Jiapeng Jiang ◽  
Qing Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Sensitivity Range ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Objectives To determine the diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system (CEUS-LI-RADS) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. Methods In this prospective study, CEUS-LI-RADS categories (LR-5 for predicting HCC) were assigned by six blinded readers and compared to the definitive HCC diagnosis in patients with liver cirrhosis per the 2017 China Liver Cancer Guidelines (CLCG). CEUS features were recorded in 96 patients with 96 histology-proven lesions. The diagnostic performance of LR-5 was described by the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Multi-reader agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results In cirrhotic patients, the specificity of LR-5 (range: 92.7–100.0 %) was statistically higher than that of CLCG for each reader (range: 28.6–64.3 %). However, the sensitivity (range: 38.6–63.6 %) and accuracy (range: 53.4–70.7 %) were statistically lower in CEUS-LIRADS than in CLCG (sensitivity range: 88.6–100.0 %; accuracy range: 77.6–86.2 %). Only fair to moderate inter-reader agreement was achieved for the CEUS-LI-RADS category (ICC = 0.595) and washout appearance (ICC range: 0.338 to 0.555). Neither nodule-in-nodule nor mosaic architecture was observed more often in HCC (all P > 0.05), with poor inter-reader consistency for both (both ICC < 0.20). Conclusion CEUS-LI-RADS category 5 has a high specificity but a low accuracy for identifying HCC in high-risk patients. Inter-reader agreement is not satisfactory concerning CEUS-LIRADS category and washout appearance. Moreover, the clinical value of ancillary features favoring HCC is quite limited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document