Table 2.
Comparison of image review results between the two sets of T2-wieghted imaging sets.
| Reader 1 | Reader 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSE T2WI | DLR T2WI | Intermethod agreement (95% CI) |
TSE T2WI | DLR T2WI | Intermethod agreement (95% CI) |
|
| Lesion location | ||||||
| No lesion | 36 (22.2) | 36 (22.2) |
1.000e (1.000–1.000) |
36 (22.2) | 36 (22.2) |
0.977* (0.951-1.000) |
| PZ | 23 (14.2) | 23 (14.2) | 20 (12.3) | 21 (13.0) | ||
| TZ | 103 (63.6) | 103 (63.6) | 106 (65.4) | 105 (64.8) | ||
| Overall PI-RADS score | ||||||
| ≤ 2 | 48 (29.6) | 47 (29.0) |
0.949† (0.931–0.963) |
73 (45.1) | 69 (42.6) |
0.907† (0.873–0.932) |
| 3 | 27 (16.7) | 23 (14.2) | 4 (2.5) | 7 (4.3) | ||
| 4 | 31 (19.1) | 29 (17.9) | 23 (14.2) | 21 (13.0) | ||
| 5 | 56 (34.6) | 63 (38.9) | 62 (38.3) | 65 (40.1) | ||
| T2WI PI-RADS score | ||||||
| ≤ 2 | 63 (38.9) | 63 (38.9) |
0.943† (0.922–0.958) |
74 (45.7) | 74 (45.7) |
0.899† (0.863–0.926) |
| 3 | 16 (9.9) | 12 (7.4) | 4 (2.5) | 4 (2.5) | ||
| 4 | 28 (17.3) | 26 (16.0) | 22 (13.6) | 20 (12.3) | ||
| 5 | 55 (34.0) | 61 (37.7) | 62 (38.3) | 64 (39.5) | ||
| MRI EPE grade | ||||||
| 0 | 112 (69.1) | 105 (64.8) |
0.957† (0.942–0.969) |
115 (71.0) | 118 (72.8) |
0.925† (0.897-945) |
| 1 | 19 (11.7) | 21 (13.0) | 17 (10.5) | 16 (9.9) | ||
| 2 | 13 (8.0) | 15 (9.3) | 8 (4.9) | 4 (2.5) | ||
| 3 | 18 (11.1) | 21 (13.0) | 22 (13.6) | 24 (14.8) | ||
| Size (cm)‡ | 2.09 ± 1.52 | 2.03 ± 1.50 |
0.996† (0.994–0.997) |
2.36 ± 1.58 | 2.46 ± 1.56 |
0.980† (0.969–0.987) |
Unless otherwise specified, the data are presented as frequencies (percentages).
*Kappa value.
†Intraclass correlation coefficient.
‡Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.