Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 15;12(10):2994.
doi: 10.3390/cancers12102994.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) Inter-Observer Reliability: An Added Value for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Detection

Francesco Del Giudice  1   2 , Martina Pecoraro  3 , Hebert Alberto Vargas  4 , Stefano Cipollari  3 , Ettore De Berardinis  1 , Marco Bicchetti  3 , Benjamin I Chung  2 , Carlo Catalano  3 , Yoshifumi Narumi  5 , James W F Catto  6 , Valeria Panebianco  3
Affiliations

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) Inter-Observer Reliability: An Added Value for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Detection

Francesco Del Giudice et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

The Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) has been introduced to provide preoperative bladder cancer staging and has proved to be reliable in assessing the presence of muscle invasion in the pre-TURBT (trans-urethral resection of bladder tumor). We aimed to assess through a systematic review and meta-analysis the inter-reader variability of VI-RADS criteria for discriminating non-muscle vs. muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC, MIBC). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase were searched up until 30 July 2020. The Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) checklist was utilized to assess the quality of included studies and a pooled measure of inter-rater reliability (Cohen's Kappa [κ] and/or Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)) was calculated. Further sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were conducted to investigate the contribution of moderators to heterogeneity. In total, eight studies between 2018 and 2020, which evaluated a total of 1016 patients via 21 interpreting genitourinary (GU) radiologists, met inclusion criteria and were critically examined. No study was considered to be significantly flawed with publication bias. The pooled weighted mean κ estimate was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78-0.88). Heterogeneity was present among the studies (Q = 185.92, d.f. = 7, p < 0.001; I2 = 92.7%). Meta-regression analyses showed that the relative % of MIBC diagnosis and cumulative reader's experience to influence the estimated outcome (Coeff: 0.019, SE: 0.007; p= 0.003 and 0.036, SE: 0.009; p = 0.001). In the present study, we confirm excellent pooled inter-reader agreement of VI-RADS to discriminate NMIBC from MIBC underlying the importance that standardization and reproducibility of VI-RADS may confer to multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) for preoperative BCa staging.

Keywords: VI-RADS; bladder cancer; bladder cancer staging; inter-reader agreement; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pooled inter-reader agreement for the studies included in the quantitative analysis. (a) Forest plot reporting the pooled inter-reader agreement among the 7 studies analyzed (excluding Sakamoto et al.); (b) Deeks’ funnel plot (test for small-study effect, p < 0.001); (c) “Trim and Fill” method suggesting imputed studies missing to remove asymmetry from the funnel plot.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sub-group analysis according to study design. (a) Forest plot reporting the pooled inter-reader agreement according subgroup analysis of the studies (b) Deeks’ funnel plot according to “study design” subgroup.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-regression plots of the quantitative variables retrieved among the studies included in the analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Huang L., Kong Q., Liu Z., Wang J., Kang Z., Zhu Y. The Diagnostic Value of MR Imaging in Differentiating T Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2018;286:502–511. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171028. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Giannarini G., Petralia G., Thoeny H.C. Potential and limitations of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer including pelvic lymph node staging: A critical analysis of the literature. Eur. Urol. 2012;61:326–340. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Panebianco V., De Berardinis E., Barchetti G., Simone G., Leonardo C., Grompone M.D., Del Monte M., Carano D., Gallucci M., Catto J., et al. An evaluation of morphological and functional multi-parametric MRI sequences in classifying non-muscle and muscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2017;27:3759–3766. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4758-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caglic I., Panebianco V., Vargas H.A., Bura V., Woo S., Pecoraro M., Cipollari S., Sala E., Barrett T. MRI of Bladder Cancer: Local and Nodal Staging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2020;27090 doi: 10.1002/jmri.27090. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Panebianco V., Del Giudice F., Leonardo C., Sciarra A., Catalano C., Catto J.W. VI-RADS Scoring Criteria for Alternative Risk-adapted Strategies in the Management of Bladder Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. Urol. 2020;78:e18–e20. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.043. - DOI - PMC - PubMed