Evaluation of the PI-RADS v2.1 Score Using Multiple Readers

NCT ID: NCT04299997

Last Updated: 2022-03-15

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

171 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-09-01

Study Completion Date

2020-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is difficult and requires expertise. As a result, it suffers from substantial inter-reader variability. The so-called Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring system has been launched in 2012 to try and standardise prostate mpMRI interpretation. It is a 5-level score that assesses the likelihood that suspicious focal prostatic lesions seen on mpMRI are clinically significant prostate cancers. Despite the use of semi-objective criteria for each category of the score, the inter-reader reproducibility of the first two versions (PI-RADS v1 launched in 2012 and PI-RADS v2 launched in 2015) was moderate at best, even for experienced readers. The last version (PI-RADS v2.1) has been launched in March 2019 in an effort to improve the inter-reader reproducibility. This version has not been evaluated yet.

The purpose of our study is to evaluate the accuracy and inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-RADS v2.1 score on a large set of 171 prostate MRIs using 21 readers of varying experience.

Twenty-one readers (14 seniors and 7 juniors) from 9 different institutions and with varying experience in prostate mpMRI accepted to participate to the study.

Reader will assess the dataset independently and will be blinded to the other readers' results. They also be blinded to clinical and biochemical data.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Prostate Cancer Urological Cancer

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

171 mpMRIs corresponding to consecutive patients who underwent

The mpMRIs were performed on a 1.5T GE MR unit or on a 3T GE or Philips MR units. All mpMRIs included T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (maximal b value: 2000 s/mm²) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging.

Assessment of the accuracy of the PI-RADS v2.1 score for predicting the presence of ISUP ≥2 prostate cancer at subsequent biopsy in the dataset of the 171 MRIs for 21 different readers.

Intervention Type OTHER

1. Ass of targeted suspect lesions

On each mpMRI,radiologist will contour lesions that were targeted at subsequent biopsy based on reports. Contours will be disclosed to readers who will assess,for each lesion:
* Likert score("gut feeling"ie subjective ass of the likelihood that lesion is clinically significant prostate cancer(5-level scale))
* PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 score(by strictly applying the published PI-RADS criteria)
* EPE score(ie the likelihood of extraprostatic extension;5-level subjective scale without predefined criteria)
* Max diameter
2. Def of add suspect lesions Readers could define suspect"additional targets"(AT);for each AT,they will provide the same criteria. It is expected that, for these suspect AT,at least one score is≥3
3. Ass of lobes Scores of prostate lobes will be automatically calculated based on 2 previous steps of reading. However,in lobes with no suspect lesion,readers could define whether same criteria are1or2,in peripheral zone and transition zone

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Assessment of the accuracy of the PI-RADS v2.1 score for predicting the presence of ISUP ≥2 prostate cancer at subsequent biopsy in the dataset of the 171 MRIs for 21 different readers.

1. Ass of targeted suspect lesions

On each mpMRI,radiologist will contour lesions that were targeted at subsequent biopsy based on reports. Contours will be disclosed to readers who will assess,for each lesion:
* Likert score("gut feeling"ie subjective ass of the likelihood that lesion is clinically significant prostate cancer(5-level scale))
* PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 score(by strictly applying the published PI-RADS criteria)
* EPE score(ie the likelihood of extraprostatic extension;5-level subjective scale without predefined criteria)
* Max diameter
2. Def of add suspect lesions Readers could define suspect"additional targets"(AT);for each AT,they will provide the same criteria. It is expected that, for these suspect AT,at least one score is≥3
3. Ass of lobes Scores of prostate lobes will be automatically calculated based on 2 previous steps of reading. However,in lobes with no suspect lesion,readers could define whether same criteria are1or2,in peripheral zone and transition zone

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Prostate mpMRI and biopsy performed at our institution
* Performed between September 2015 and July 2016
* No history of prostate cancer at the time of the mpMRI

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients who already had treatment for prostate cancer
* Patients under Active Surveillance
Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Hospices Civils de Lyon

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Hôpital Edouard Herriot

Lyon, , France

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

France

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

MULTI_2020

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.