An Assessment of PI-RADS v2.1: Inter-Reader Agreement, Diagnostic Accuracy, and the Added Value of PSA Density in Prostate Cancer Prediction

Introduction: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpreted using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 is central to prostate cancer (PCa) assessment, but inter-reader variability remains a concern. This study evaluated inter-reader agreement, diagnostic performance, the utility of prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), and imaging predictors of biopsy-detected PCa. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 102 patients who underwent prostate mpMRI followed by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. Three experienced radiologists independently scored examinations using PI-RADS v2.1. Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted κ statistics. Diagnostic performance was evaluated at a PI-RADS ≥3 threshold. Patients were stratified by PSA-D, and logistic regression identified imaging predictors of biopsy outcomes. Reader confidence was scored on a 10-point scale. Results: PCa was detected in 60/102 patients (58.8%) and csPCa in 46/102 (45.1%). Overall agreement was moderate to good (ICC, 0.749; κ, 0.748), with higher agreement in the transitional compared to the peripheral zone (ICC, 0.822 vs. 0.662). Averaged PI-RADS scores yielded 100% sensitivity for both PCa and csPCa, with specificities of 47.6% and 35.7%, respectively. PSA-D stratification showed higher PPVs at PSA-D ≥0.15 ng/mL2, while sensitivity and NPV were 100% in both strata; specificity remained relatively low. Reader confidence correlated with PI-RADS category and interpretation accuracy. In multivariable patient-level analyses, DWI hyperintensity was independently associated with biopsy-detected PCa and csPCa. Conclusions: PI-RADS v2.1 showed moderate to good inter-reader agreement and high sensitivity but modest specificity for PCa and csPCa. Agreement was higher for transitional-zone lesions, and DWI hyperintensity was independently associated with PCa and csPCa. PSA-D subgroup estimates were imprecise, and its incremental value requires confirmation in larger prospective cohorts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-09-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16183056
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

An Assessment of PI-RADS v2.1: Inter-Reader Agreement, Diagnostic Accuracy, and the Added Value of PSA Density in Prostate Cancer Prediction

Mohammad M. Abufaraj, Shahrokh François Shariat, Omar Mohammad Ismail, Ahmad S Kreishan et al.
Diagnostics
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
article

An Assessment of PI-RADS v2.1: Inter-Reader Agreement, Diagnostic Accuracy, and the Added Value of PSA Density in Prostate Cancer Prediction

Mohammad M. Abufaraj, Shahrokh François Shariat, Omar Mohammad Ismail, Ahmad S Kreishan, Mohammad Abu Shattal, Mousa A. Al-Abbadi, Yazeed E. Alhanbali, Osama Samara, Abdelrhman Labib, Diana A. Bawi, Rama M. Abbadi, Salma N. Farah, Sarah B. Al-Qalalweh
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpreted using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 is central to prostate cancer (PCa) assessment, but inter-reader variability remains a concern. This study evaluated inter-reader agreement, diagnostic performance, the utility of prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), and imaging predictors of biopsy-detected PCa. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 102 patients who underwent prostate mpMRI followed by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. Three experienced radiologists independently scored examinations using PI-RADS v2.1. Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted κ statistics. Diagnostic performance was evaluated at a PI-RADS ≥3 threshold. Patients were stratified by PSA-D, and logistic regression identified imaging predictors of biopsy outcomes. Reader confidence was scored on a 10-point scale. Results: PCa was detected in 60/102 patients (58.8%) and csPCa in 46/102 (45.1%). Overall agreement was moderate to good (ICC, 0.749; κ, 0.748), with higher agreement in the transitional compared to the peripheral zone (ICC, 0.822 vs. 0.662). Averaged PI-RADS scores yielded 100% sensitivity for both PCa and csPCa, with specificities of 47.6% and 35.7%, respectively. PSA-D stratification showed higher PPVs at PSA-D ≥0.15 ng/mL2, while sensitivity and NPV were 100% in both strata; specificity remained relatively low. Reader confidence correlated with PI-RADS category and interpretation accuracy. In multivariable patient-level analyses, DWI hyperintensity was independently associated with biopsy-detected PCa and csPCa. Conclusions: PI-RADS v2.1 showed moderate to good inter-reader agreement and high sensitivity but modest specificity for PCa and csPCa. Agreement was higher for transitional-zone lesions, and DWI hyperintensity was independently associated with PCa and csPCa. PSA-D subgroup estimates were imprecise, and its incremental value requires confirmation in larger prospective cohorts.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(18)
University of Jordan (JO), University of Minnesota (US), Cornell University (US), King Hussein Cancer Center (JO), Jordan Hospital (JO), King Hussein Medical Center (JO), University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB), Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna (AT), Jordan University Hospital (JO), The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.