Comparison of PI-RADS Versions 2.0 and 2.1 for MRI-based Calculation of the Prostate Volume

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Prostate gland volume (PGV) should be routinely included in MRI reports of the prostate. The recently updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 includes a change in the recommended measurement method for PGV compared to version 2.0. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of MRI-based PGV calculations with the volumetric manual slice-by-slice prostate segmentation as a reference standard using the linear measurements per PI-RADS versions 2.0 and 2.1. Furthermore, to assess inter-reader agreement for the different measurement approaches, determine the influence of an enlarged transition zone on measurement accuracy and to assess the value of the bullet formula for PGV calculation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-five consecutive treatment-naive patients undergoing prostate MRI were retrospectively analyzed. Prostates were manually contoured and segmented on axial T2-weighted images. Four different radiologists independently measured the prostate in three dimensions according to PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1, respectively. MRI-based PGV was calculated using the ellipsoid and bullet formulas. Calculated volumes were compared to the reference manual segmentations using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS Inter-reader agreement was excellent for the ellipsoid and bullet formulas using PI-RADS v2.0 (ICC 0.985 and 0.987) and v2.1 (ICC 0.990 and 0.994), respectively. The median difference from the reference standard using the ellipsoid formula derived PGV was 0.4 mL (interquartile range, -3.9 to 5.1 mL) for PI-RADS v2.0 (p = 0.393) and 2.6 mL (interquartile range, -1.6 to 7.3 mL) for v2.1 (p < 0.001) with a median difference of 2.2 mL. The bullet formula overestimated PGV by a median of 13.3 mL using PI-RADS v2.0 (p < 0.001) and 16.0 mL using v2.1 (p < 0.001). In the presence of an enlarged transition zone the PGV tended to be higher than the reference standard for PI-RADS v2.0 (median difference of 4.7 mL; p = 0.018) and for v2.1 (median difference of 5.7 mL, p < 0.001) using the ellipsoid formula. CONCLUSION Inter-reader agreement was excellent for the calculated PGV for both methods. PI-RADS v2.0 measurements with the ellipsoid formula yielded the most accurate volume estimates. The differences between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 were statistically significant although small in absolute numbers but may be of relevance in specific clinical scenarios like prostate-specific antigen density calculation. These findings validate the use of the ellipsoid formula and highlight that the bullet formula should not be used for prostate volume estimation due to systematic overestimation