Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 21, 2026
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
Published on: July 11, 2025
Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone
Satheesh Krishna1, Matthew McInnes1, Christopher Lim1
11 Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Objective:
The objective of our study was to compare Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 (PI-RADSv1) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for the detection of peripheral zone (PZ) Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 cancers.
Materials And Methods:
Forty-seven consecutive patients with 52 PZ Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 cancers that were 0.5 cm3 or larger underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and 3-T MRI between 2012 and 2015. Two blinded radiologists (readers 1 and 2) retrospectively assigned PI-RADSv1 sequence (T2-weighted imaging, DWI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI [DCE-MRI]) and sum scores and PI-RADSv2 assessment categories. A third blinded radiologist (reader 3) measured apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio (ADC of tumor / ADC of normal PZ) using RP-MRI maps. Sensitivity, false-positive rate, and overall accuracy were compared using McNemar test. Pearson correlation was performed.
Results:
Using PI-RADSv1, reader 1 detected 86.5% (45/52) of the cancers and reader 2, 76.9% (40/52) of the cancers. Using PI-RADSv2, reader 1 detected 78.9% (41/52) and reader 2, 67.3% (35/52). Reader 1 detected 7.7% (4/52) and reader 2 detected 9.6% (5/52) more tumors using PI-RADSv1 due to T2-weighted imaging score ≥ 4 or DCE-MRI score ≥ 3. Sensitivity was higher for PI-RADSv1 (p = 0.01 and 0.03, readers 1 and 2). False-positive rates were higher with PI-RADSv1 than with PI-RADSv2 (1.8% vs 0.9% for reader 1; 3.6% vs 1.8% for reader 2) without significant differences in false-positive rate (p = 0.41 and 0.25) or overall accuracy (p = 0.06 and 0.23). PI-RADSv1 sum scores correlated strongly with PI-RADSv2 categories (B = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.0001). The mean ADC ratio was 0.61 ± 0.14 mm2/s with no difference between visible and nonvisible tumors (p = 0.06-0.5). Interobserver agreement was moderate for PI-RADSv2 (κ = 0.41) and ranged from slight to substantial for PI-RADSv1 (T2-weighted imaging, κ = 0.32; DWI, κ = 0.52; DCE-MRI, κ = 0.13).
Conclusion:
There was no difference in overall detection of cancers comparing PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2; however, PI-RADSv1 sequence scores on T2-weighted imaging and DCE-MRI detected approximately 10% more tumors that were otherwise underestimated on DWI and using PI-RADSv2 decision-tree rules.
