PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

Impact of measurement method on interobserver variability of apparent diffusion coefficient of lesions in prostate MRI.

  • Hiroaki Takahashi,
  • Kotaro Yoshida,
  • Akira Kawashima,
  • Nam Ju Lee,
  • Adam T Froemming,
  • Daniel A Adamo,
  • Ashish Khandelwal,
  • Candice W Bolan,
  • Matthew T Heller,
  • Robert P Hartman,
  • Bohyun Kim,
  • Kenneth A Philbrick,
  • Rickey E Carter,
  • Lance A Mynderse,
  • Mitchell R Humphreys,
  • Jason C Cai,
  • Naoki Takahashi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268829
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 5
p. e0268829

Abstract

Read online

PurposeTo compare the inter-observer variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of prostate lesions measured by 2D-region of interest (ROI) with and without specific measurement instruction.MethodsForty lesions in 40 patients who underwent prostate MR followed by targeted prostate biopsy were evaluated. A multi-reader study (10 readers) was performed to assess the agreement of ADC values between 2D-ROI without specific instruction and 2D-ROI with specific instruction to place a 9-pixel size 2D-ROI covering the lowest ADC area. The computer script generated multiple overlapping 9-pixel 2D-ROIs within a 3D-ROI encompassing the entire lesion placed by a single reader. The lowest mean ADC values from each 2D-small-ROI were used as reference values. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman plot. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed between ADC values measured by 10 readers and the computer-calculated reference values.ResultsTen lesions were benign, 6 were Gleason score 6 prostate carcinoma (PCa), and 24 were clinically significant PCa. The mean±SD ADC reference value by 9-pixel-ROI was 733 ± 186 (10-6 mm2/s). The 95% limits of agreement of ADC values among readers were better with specific instruction (±112) than those without (±205). ICC between reader-measured ADC values and computer-calculated reference values ranged from 0.736-0.949 with specific instruction and 0.349-0.919 without specific instruction.ConclusionInterobserver agreement of ADC values can be improved by indicating a measurement method (use of a specific ROI size covering the lowest ADC area).