Precision and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia
To validate the application of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for use in research and clinical management.
Two radiologists with 5 and 11 years 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 κ were applied. This was a retrospective IRB-approved study.
IRR (precision) between the two interpreting radiologists was 64% agreement, corresponding to unweighted κ of 0.52. Composite proportion of agreement across all BPH types (categories) for interpreting radiologists was 0.67. Observer accuracy was 62% agreement, unweighted κ 0.49, for observer 1 and 67%, unweighted κ 0.58, for observer 2. Intrarater reliability for the administrator was 87% agreement, unweighted κ 0.81 with composite proportion of agreement across all categories of 0.87.
MRI lobar classification of BPH is a reproducible and reliable tool for research and clinical applications.
KeywordsProstate BPH Lobar classification
This study was not supported by any grants or other financial assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Authors have no pertinent conflicts of interest to declare.
This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board for human research.
- 2.Saigal C, Joyce G, Geschwind S, et al. (2004) Methods. In Litwin MS, Saigal CS (eds): Urologic diseases in America. Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office. pp 283–316Google Scholar
- 4.Vuichoud C, Loughlin KR. (2015) Benign prostatic hyperplasia: epidemiology, economics and evaluation. Can J Urol 22(Suppl 1):1–6Google Scholar
- 5.Barry MJ, Beckley S, Boyle P, et al. Importance of understanding the epidemiology and natural history of BPH. In: Cockett ATK, Aso Y, Chatelain C, et al (eds) (1991) Proceedings of the International consultation on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Paris: Scientific Communications International Ltd.; p. 37Google Scholar
- 8.Randall A (1931). Surgical pathology of prostatic obstructions. Baltimore (MD): Williams and WilkinsGoogle Scholar
- 11.Golzarian J, Antunes AA, Bilhim T, Carnevale FC, Konety B, McVary KT, Parsons JK, Pisco JM, Siegel DN, Spies J, Wasserman N, Gowda N, Ahrar K (2014) Prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia and bleeding in patients with prostate cancer: proceedings from a multidisciplinary research consensus panel. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 25(5):665–74 [Consensus Development Conference]Google Scholar
- 13.Grivas N, van der Roest R, Tillier C, Schouten D, van Muilekrom E, Schoots IHeijmink S (2017) Patterns of benign prostate hyperplasia based on magnetic resonance imaging are correlated with lower urinary tract symptoms and continence in men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. UrologyGoogle Scholar
- 14.Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the κ statistic. Fam Med. 37:360–363Google Scholar
- 17.de la Talle A, Viellefond A, Berger N, Boucher N, De Fromont M, Fondimare A, Moliné V, Piron D, Sibony M, Staroz D, Triller M, Peltier E, Thiounn N, Rubin MA (2003) Evaluation of the interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma using tissue microarrays. Human Pathol 34:444–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Melia J, Moseley R, Ball RY, Griffiths DFR, Grigor K, Harnden P, Jarmulowicz M, McWilliam LJ, Montironi R, Waller M, Moss S, Parkinson MC (2006) A UK-based investigation of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies. Histopathology 48:644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Bain GO, Koch M, Hanson J (1982) Feasibility of grading carcinomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106:265–267Google Scholar
- 26.Rousselet MC, Saint-Andre JP, Six P, et al (1986) Reproductibilite et valeur pronostique des grades histologiques de Gleason et de Gaeta dans les carcinomes de la prostate. Ann Urol 20:317–322Google Scholar
- 27.Harada M, Mostofi FK, Corle DK, et al (1977) Preliminary studies of histologic prognosis in cancer of the prostate. Cancer Treat Rep 61:223–225Google Scholar
- 28.Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière, O. (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Meikle AW, Stephenson RA, Lewis CM, Middleton RG (1997) Effects of age and sex hormones on transition and peripheral zone volumes of prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia in twins. J Clin Endocrinology and Metabolism. 82:571–575Google Scholar