Advertisement

Precision and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia

  • Neil F. WassermanEmail author
  • Eric Niendorf
  • Benjamin Spilseth
Pelvis

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

MRI lobar classification of BPH is a reproducible and reliable tool for research and clinical applications.

Keywords

Prostate BPH Lobar classification 

Notes

Funding

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.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board for human research.

References

  1. 1.
    Maserejian N.N., Chen S., Chiu G.R., et al: Incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a population-based study of men and women. Urology (2013); 82:560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Taub DA, Wei JT (2006) The economics of benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States. Curr Urol Rep 7:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vuichoud C, Loughlin KR. (2015) Benign prostatic hyperplasia: epidemiology, economics and evaluation. Can J Urol 22(Suppl 1):1–6Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Lee A, Lee HJ, Foo KT (2017) Can men with prostates sized 80 mL or larger be managed conservatively? Investig Clin Urol 58:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lepor H, Williford WO, Barry MJ, Brawer MK, Dixon CM, Gormley G, Haakenson C, Machi M, Narayan P, Padles RJ (1996) The efficiency of terazosin, finasteride or both in benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 335: 533–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Randall A (1931). Surgical pathology of prostatic obstructions. Baltimore (MD): Williams and WilkinsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wasserman NF (2006) Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review and ultrasound classification. Radiol Clin N Am 44:689–710ßCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wasserman NF, Spilseth B, Golzerian J, Metzger BJ (2015) Use of MRI for lobar classification of benign prostatic hyperplasia: potential phenotypic biomarkers for research on treatment. AJR 205:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Guneyli S, Ward E, Peng Y, Nehal Yousuf A, Trilisky I, Westin C, Antic T, Oto A (2017) MRI evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation with international prostate symptom score. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging 45:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the κ statistic. Fam Med. 37:360–363Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 20:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Allsbrook WC, Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 32:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: General pathologist. Human Pathol 32:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC Jr, et al (2000) Pathology residents’ use of a web-based tutorial to improve Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma on needle biopsies. Hum Pathol 31:1044–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Egevad L (2001) Reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostate cancer can be improved by the use of reference images. Urology 57:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bain GO, Koch M, Hanson J (1982) Feasibility of grading carcinomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106:265–267Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gleason DF (1992) Histologic grading of prostate cancer: A perspective. Hum Pathol 23:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cintra ML, Billis A (1991) Histologic grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: Intraobserver reproducibility of the Mostofi, Gleason and Bocking Systems. Int Urol Nephrol 23:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 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
  29. 29.
    Muller, B. G., Shih, J. H., Sankineni, S. et al. (2015) Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology, 277: 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, Barry-Delongchamp N, Bruguière E, Portalez D, Malavaud B (2015) Prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275:458–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al (2013) Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 23(11):3185–3190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the κ statistic. (2012) Biochem Med (Zagreb); 22(3):276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 34.
    Tan YH, Foo KT (2003) Intravesical prostatic protrusion predicts the outcome of a trial without catheter following acute urine retention. J Urol. 170:2339–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shin SH, Kim JW, Kim JW, Oh MM, Moon DG (2013) Defining the degree of intravesical prostatic protrusion in association with bladder outlet obstruction. Korean J Urol 54:369–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee SW, Cho JM, Kang JY, Yoo TK. (2010) Clinical and urodynamic significance of morphological differences in intravesical prostatic protrusion. Korean J Urol 51:694–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cumpanas A, Botoca M, Minciu R, Bucuras V (2013) Intravesical prostatic protrusion can be a predicting factor for the treatment outcome in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic obstruction treated with tamsulosin. Urology 81:859–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations