Search

Contains fulltext : 248584.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI-directed biopsy (TR-MRDB) and transperineal (TP)-MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed a two-centre cohort of consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) compliant pre-biopsy MRI in a single, high-volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR-MRDB in Centre 1 and TP-MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy-avoidance due to non-suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy-related complications between TR- and TP-MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI-RADS category. RESULTS: Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR- and TP-MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of -5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI -2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR-MRDB (0.50%) and TP-MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.87% to 1.1%). CONCLUSION: This high-volume, two-centre study shows pre-biopsy MRI as a decision tool is implementable in daily clinical practice. Compared to recent trials, a substantially higher biopsy avoidance rate was achieved without compromising GG ≥2/GG ≥3 detection and coinciding with lower over detection rates of GG 1 cancer. Prostate cancer detection and complication rates were comparable for TR- and TP-MRDB.

Contains fulltext : 251446.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Funder: Radboud University Medical Center, Objectives: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. Results: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. Conclusions: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. Key Points: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.