Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025

A Cognitive Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound
Published on: March 21, 2025
Diagnostic Accuracy and Observer Agreement of the MRI Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting Assessment Score
Martina Pecoraro1, Baris Turkbey1, Andrei S Purysko1
1From the Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University/Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161 Rome, Italy (M.P., M.R., C.C., V.P.); Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.T.); Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (A.S.P.); Institute of Radiology (R.G.) and Unit of Urology (G.G.), Santa Maria della Misericordia Academic Medical Center, Udine, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (G.V.); Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, England (A.R.P.); and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (J.O.B.).
Abstract:
Background Prostate cancer local recurrence location and extent must be determined in an accurate and timely manner. Because of the lack of a standardized MRI approach after whole-gland treatment, a panel of international experts recently proposed the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) assessment score. Purpose To determine the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RR for detecting local recurrence in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radiation therapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP) and to evaluate the interreader variability of PI-RR scoring. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent multiparametric MRI between September 2016 and May 2021 for BCR after RT or RP. MRI scans were analyzed, and a PI-RR score was assigned independently by four radiologists. The reference standard was defined using histopathologic findings, follow-up imaging, or clinical response to treatment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated to assess PI-RR performance for each reader. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine interreader agreement. Results A total of 100 men were included: 48 patients after RT (median age, 76 years [IQR, 70-82 years]) and 52 patients after RP (median age, 70 years [IQR, 66-74 years]). After RT, with PI-RR of 3 or greater as a cutoff (assigned when recurrence is uncertain), diagnostic performance ranges were 71%-81% sensitivity, 74%-93% specificity, 71%-89% PPV, 79%-86% NPV, and 77%-88% accuracy across the four readers. After RP, with PI-RR of 3 or greater as a cutoff, performance ranges were 59%-83% sensitivity, 87%-100% specificity, 88%-100% PPV, 66%-80% NPV, and 75%-85% accuracy. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.87 across the four readers for both the RT and RP groups. Conclusion MRI scoring with the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting assessment provides structured, reproducible, and accurate evaluation of local recurrence after definitive therapy for prostate cancer. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Haider in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on May 11, 2022.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

