Validation of PI-RADS v2 Scores at Various Non-University Radiology Practices

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Excellent

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments:

This study compares the differences in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) scoring across different institutions for the cases that were referred for targeted biopsy. The study is well designed and executed. The Methods and Results are adequately described. The Results provide further evidence that PI-RADS v2 will need further improvement in order to improve positive biopsy rate so as to avoid much of the un-necessary biopsy that occurs in PI-RADS 3 lesions. The Discussion offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the findings of the present study taking all the relevant literature into account. The study is well supported with briefly explained tables. It finally Concludes that PI-RADS v2 scoring can serve as a valuable tool in aiding decision making for prostate lesions that are amenable to biopsy.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Very good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This retrospective study aims to assess the validity of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) scores in a non-university practice setting where the practitioners and the referring urologists and radiologists are not associated with university academic center. The study evaluates the efficacy of PI-RADS v2 scoring at predicting positive biopsy rates for in-bore MRI-guided targeted biopsy. The study holds significance as it shows that PI-RADS v2 can be applied homogeneously in the non-university setting without significant difference in outcome. The retrospective nature of the study carrying inherent risk for selection bias, the small sample size of the study in comparison to related literature and the specialized nature of the institution come out as some of the limitations of the study.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team