Is Likert better than PI-RADS at predicting prostate cancer on MRI and can a mathematical algorithm achieve similar results?

BACKGROUND

Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) is an internationally recognized system to quantify risk of prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, studies have suggested methods to improve predictive accuracy.

PURPOSE

To assess two different methods that aim to improve the accuracy of PI-RADS scores: a subjective Likert score given by experienced reporters, and an objective Calculated Adjustment of PI-RADS Equivocal Score (CAPES).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five experienced reporters in a quaternary referral unit used a standardized reporting template to prospectively collect PI-RADS and Likert scores for 1467 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scans between January 2021 and June 2022. Histology results were recorded for patients who underwent trans-perineal biopsy. The CAPES tool was retrospectively applied to the cases scoring PI-RADS 3. A theoretical standardized biopsy protocol (assuming all patients scoring ≥3 were referred for biopsy) was used to compare the three scoring systems for sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

Across all reporters, significantly fewer equivocal "3" scores were given using Likert (15.7%) or CAPES (2.2%) compared to PI-RADS (24.1%). Assuming a protocol where all patients scoring ≥3 were biopsied, Likert had a higher specificity (69.0% vs. 54.4%), sensitivity (98.3% vs. 97.7%), and PPV (49.9% vs. 40.3%) than PI-RADS for identifying ISUP ≥2 cancer. The CAPES tool had an even higher specificity (81.4%) and PPV (61.2%) with only a slightly lower sensitivity (93.4%) resulting in 37.1% (n = 316) fewer biopsies than PI-RADS, and 22.4% (n = 155) fewer biopsies than Likert across 1467 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to PI-RADS scoring, Likert scoring or CAPES can result in fewer equivocal scores, greater PPV, and fewer unnecessary biopsies.