Abdominal Imaging - Original Article

Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1


  • Elif Gündoğdu
  • Emre Emekli

Received Date: 21.01.2020 Accepted Date: 12.04.2020 Diagn Interv Radiol 2021;27(1):15-19


We aimed to evaluate the prostate volumes calculated as recommended in the PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines, intraobserver and interobserver variability, and the agreement between the two measurement methods.


Prostate mpMRI examinations of 114 patients were evaluated retrospectively. T2-weighted sequences in the axial and sagittal planes were used for the measurement of the prostate volume. The measurements were performed by two independent observers as recommended in the PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines. Both observers conducted the measurements twice and the average values were obtained. In order to prevent bias, the observers carried out measurements at one-week intervals. In order to assess intraobserver variability, observers repeated the measurements again at one-week intervals. The prostate volume was calculated using the ellipsoid formula (W×H×L×0.52).


Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) revealed almost perfect agreement between the first and second observers for the measurements according to both PI-RADS v2 (0.93) and PI-RADS v2.1 (0.96) guidelines. The measurements were repeated by both observers. According to the ICC values, there was excellent agreement between the first and second measurements with respect to both PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1 for first (0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and second observer (0.94 and 0.97, respectively). For both observers, the differences had a random, homogeneous distribution, and there was no clear relationship between the differences and mean values.


The ellipsoid formula is a reliable method for rapid assessment of prostate volume, with excellent intra- and interobserver agreement and no need for expert training. For the height measurement, the recommendations of the PIRADS v2.1 guideline seem to provide more consistently reproducible results.