Search

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: To assess the proportion of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) found during follow-up in patients with negative systematic biopsy (SB) followed by non-suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and persistent clinical suspicion of PCa compared to the general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study in a subgroup of patients from a multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with prior negative SB with a persistent elevated prostate-specific antigen and/or suspicious digital rectal examination undergoing mpMRI. All patients with negative SB and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≤2 on mpMRI entered biochemical follow-up. Follow-up data until December 2021 were collected by reviewing institutional hospital records and the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). The primary outcome was the observed number of csPCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4/International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) cases during follow-up compared to the expected number in the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR]). RESULTS: In total, 431 patients had non-suspicious mpMRI and entered biochemical follow-up. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 41 (23-57) months, 38 patients were diagnosed with PCa, of whom 13 (3.0%) had csPCa. The SIR for csPCa was 4.3 (95% confidence interval 2.3-7.4; total excess of eight cases). A higher risk of a positive biopsy for (cs)PCa based on the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator and a suspicious repeat MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) were significant predictive factors for csPCa. CONCLUSION: After negative prior biopsy and non-suspicious mpMRI the risk of csPCa is low. However, compared to the general population, the risk of csPCa is increased despite the high negative predictive value of mpMRI. More research focusing on biochemical and image-guided risk-adapted diagnostic surveillance strate

01 april 2023, Item does not contain fulltext

01 januari 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 243850.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, KEY POINTS: * It is mandatory to evaluate the image quality of a prostate MRI scan, and to mention this quality in the report. * PI-QUAL v1 is an essential starting tool to standardize the evaluation of the quality of prostate MR-images as objectively as possible. * PI-QUAL will step by step develop into a reliable quality assessment tool to ensure that the first step of the MRI pathway is as accurate as possible.

Contains fulltext : 283332.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of a risk-based ultrasound (US)-directed pathway (Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator [RPCRC] #3; US volume assessment) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective multicenter study (MR-PROPER) with 1:1 allocation among 21 centers (US arm in 11 centers, MRI arm in ten). Biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age >/=50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0-50 ng/ml, +/- abnormal digital rectal examination) were included. INTERVENTION: Biopsy-naive men with elevated risk of prostate cancer, determined using RPCRC#3 in the US arm and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3-5 in the MRI arm, underwent systematic biopsies (US arm) or targeted biopsies (MRI arm). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the proportion of men with grade group (GG) >/=2 cancer. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of biopsies avoided and GG 1 cancers detected. Categorical (nonparametric) data were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi(2) tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1965 men were included in the intention-to-treat population (US arm n = 950, MRI arm n = 1015). The US and MRI pathways detected GG >/=2 cancers equally well (235/950, 25% vs 239/1015, 24%; difference 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6% to 5.0%; p = 0.5). The US pathway detected more GG 1 cancers than the MRI pathway (121/950, 13% vs 84/1015, 8.3%; difference 4.5%, 95% CI 1.8-7.2%; p < 0.01). The US pathway avoided fewer biopsies than the MRI pathway (403/950, 42% vs 559/1015, 55%; difference -13%, 95% CI -17% to -8.3%; p < 0.01

Contains fulltext : 253046.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, In recent years, clinical use of novel advanced imaging modalities in prostate cancer detection, staging, and therapy has intensified and is currently reforming clinical guidelines. In the future, advanced imaging technologies will continue to develop and become even more accurate, which will offer new opportunities for improving patient selection, surgical treatment, and radiotherapy, with the potential to guide prostate cancer therapy.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Patients with renal impairment cannot undergo angiography because iodine and gadolinium contrast agents are contraindicated. Iron-containing ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles, such as ferumoxtran-10, are not contraindicated in these patients. Thus, patients with renal failure can still undergo angiography with ferumoxtran-10. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the visibility of pelvic vessels with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) using ferumoxtran-10 as contrast agent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and eighty-one patients diagnosed with primary or recurrent prostate cancer underwent pelvic ferumoxtran-10 MRA. Eleven anatomical pelvic-vessel segments per patient were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative criteria for image quality (IQ), vessel visibility (VV), and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). INTERVENTION: Ferumoxtran-10-enhaced MRA. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: IQ, VV, and CNR were assessed on a 5-point scale for each data set/vessel segment (very poor, poor, moderate, good, and excellent). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: IQ was good to excellent for 98.2% of the data sets and VV was good to excellent for 97.7% of all vessel segments. The mean CNR for all segments was 88.13 (standard deviation 4.22). Contrast bolus imaging cannot be performed with this technique, so it is impossible to visualize the arterial or venous phase separately. The timing of contrast administration is also a limitation, with MRA performed 1 d after contrast infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Ferumoxtran-10 MRA showed excellent image quality and visibility for pelvic vessels. In addition, the homogeneity of the intraluminal contrast was superior. Patients with preterminal or terminal renal function can benefit from ferumoxtran-10 MRA if visualization of their pelvic vessels is required. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging of blood vessels using a contrast agent called ferumoxtran-10 is a promising technique for patients with impaired

Contains fulltext : 244316.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The BULLSEYE trial is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial to test the hypothesis if (177)Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC) to prolong the progression-free survival (PFS) and postpone the need for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The original study protocol was published in 2020. Here, we report amendments that have been made to the study protocol since the commencement of the trial. CHANGES IN METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two important changes were made to the original protocol: (1) the study will now use (177)Lu-PSMA-617 instead of (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T and (2) responding patients with residual disease on (18)F-PSMA PET after the first two cycles are eligible to receive additional two cycles of 7.4 GBq (177)Lu-PSMA in weeks 12 and 18, summing up to a maximum of 4 cycles if indicated. Therefore, patients receiving (177)Lu-PSMA-617 will also receive an interim (18)F-PSMA PET scan in week 4 after cycle 2. The title of this study was modified to; "Lutetium-177-PSMA in Oligo-metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer" and is now partly supported by Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company. CONCLUSIONS: We present an update of the original study protocol prior to the completion of the study. Treatment arm patients that were included and received (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T under the previous protocol will be replaced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04443062 . First posted: June 23, 2020.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Imaging techniques are used to identify local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) for salvage therapy and to exclude metastases that should be addressed with systemic therapy. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a reduction in the variability of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is required to detect local PCa recurrence in men with biochemical relapse after local treatment with curative intent. OBJECTIVE: To propose a standardised method for image acquisition and assessment of PCa local recurrence using MRI after radiation therapy (RP) and radical prostatectomy (RT). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was formulated using the existing literature. An international panel of experts conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature. The PI-RR system was created via consensus through a combination of face-to-face and online discussions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Similar to with PI-RADS, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion, the minimum acceptable MRI parameters for detection of recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are set. Also, a simplified and standardised terminology and content of the reports that use five assessment categories to summarise the suspicion of local recurrence (PI-RR) are designed. PI-RR scores of 1 and 2 are assigned to lesions with a very low and low likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR 3 is assigned if the presence of recurrence is uncertain. PI-RR 4 and 5 are assigned for a high and very high likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a structured reporting system (PI-RR) for MRI evaluation of local recurrence of PCa after RT and RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new method called PI-RR was developed to promote standardisation and reduce variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting

Contains fulltext : 245173.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: * AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence. * Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies. * Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of "unnecessary" prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy. METHODS: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥-2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility. RESULTS: Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for

Contains fulltext : 235310.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: [(177)Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy ((177)Lu-PSMA) is a novel treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), which could also be applied to patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) with PSMA expression. In this prospective study (NCT03828838), we analyzed toxicity, radiation doses, and treatment effect of (177)Lu-PSMA in pateints with low-volume mHSPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten progressive patients with mHSPC following local treatment, with a maximum of ten metastatic lesions on [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/diagnostic-CT imaging (PSMA-PET) and serum PSA doubling time <6 months received two cycles of (177)Lu-PSMA. Whole-body single-photon emission CT/CT (SPECT/CT) and blood dosimetry was performed to calculate doses to the tumors and organs at risk (OAR). Adverse events (AE), laboratory values (monitoring response and toxicity), and quality of life were monitored until week 24 after cycle 2, the end of study (EOS). All patients underwent PSMA-PET at screening, 8 weeks after cycle 1, 12 weeks after cycle 2, and at EOS. RESULTS: All patients received two cycles of (177)Lu-PSMA without complications. No treatment-related grade III-IV adverse events were observed. According to dosimetry, none of the OAR reached threshold doses for radiation-related toxicity. Moreover, all target lesions received a higher radiation dose than the OAR. All 10 patients showed altered PSA kinetics, postponed androgen deprivation therapy, and maintained good quality of life. Half of the patients showed a PSA response of more than 50%. One patient had a complete response on PSMA-PET imaging until EOS and two others had only minimal residual disease. CONCLUSIONS: (177)Lu-PSMA appeared to be a feasible and safe treatment modality in patients with low-volume mHSPC.

Contains fulltext : 232895.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), The burden of prostate cancer is increasing. Therefore, we need to implement a contemporary, organized, risk-stratified program for early detection to reduce both the harm from the disease and potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while avoiding underdiagnosis to considerably improve the harm-to-benefit ratio.

Item does not contain fulltext, The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: PSMA-PET is a novel imaging modality for the staging of prostate cancer (PCa). While there are several PSMA ligands available, F-18-PSMA-1007 is particularly of interest as it is not renally excreted and therefore does not impair the imaging of the pelvic area. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the F-18-PSMA-1007-PET for the primary staging of PCa and compared it to multi-parametric (mp) MRI and histopathology. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of men with intermediate and high-risk PCa patients that underwent a F-18-PSMA-1007-PET after mpMRI with subsequent MR-guided target biopsy (MRGB). Suspicious mpMRI lesions and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET were simultaneously reviewed on both a per patient and per-lesion basis. Results were subsequently evaluated with histopathological outcome of MRGB, and if performed, the radical prostatectomy specimen. RESULTS: A total of 66 suspicious mpMRI lesions were identified in 53 patients and underwent MRGB. Two lesions had a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) less than the mean SUV(max) of healthy prostate tissue and were considered as non-PSMA-expressing. All PSMA avid tumors had higher SUV(max) than the mean SUV(mean) of the bladder/urine, therefore all lesions were clearly distinguishable in the pelvic area. Twenty-three patients received a radical prostatectomy of which the histopathology specimens were evaluated. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT correctly staged seminal vesicle invasion (i.e. pT3b) more often than mpMRI (90 vs. 76%), whereas mpMRI more accurately detected extracapsular extension (i.e. pT3a) compared to F-18-PSMA-1007-PET (90% vs 57%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study of a selected cohort suggest that dual imaging with mpMRI and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET may improve staging of primary PCa. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT had low renal clearance, which could assist the evaluation of tumors in proximity of the bladder.

Contains fulltext : 235571.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), KEY POINTS: * Identify, assure, and measure major sources of variability affecting the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.* Develop strategies to control and minimize variations that impair pathway effectiveness including the performance of main players and team working.* Assure end-to-end quality of the diagnostic chain with robust multidisciplinary team working.

Item does not contain fulltext, Accurate assessment of lymph node (LN) metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) patients is critical for prognosis and patient management. Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT and ferumoxtran-10 nanoparticle-enhanced MRI (nano-MRI) are imaging modalities with high potential to identify LN metastases in PCa patients. The aim of this study was to compare the results of these imaging technologies in terms of characteristics and anatomic localization of suspicious LNs in order to assess the feasibility of their complementary use for imaging in PCa patients. Methods: In total, 45 patients with either primary PCa (n = 8) or recurrence (n = 36) were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent both (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI between October 2015 and July 2017 within 3 wk. Both scans were performed at the same institution according to local clinical protocols. All scans were analyzed independently by experienced nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists. The size, anatomic location, and level of suspicion were determined for all visible LNs. Subsequently, the findings from (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI were compared without respect to a reference standard. Results: In total, 179 suspicious LNs were identified. Significantly more suspicious LNs per patient were detected by nano-MRI (P < 0.001): 160 were identified in 33 patients by nano-MRI, versus 71 in 25 patients by (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Of all suspicious LNs, 108 were identified only by nano-MRI (60%), 19 (11%) only by (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and 52 (29%) by both methods. The mean size of the suspicious LNs as identified by nano-MRI was significantly smaller (5.3 mm) than that by (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT (6.0 mm; P = 0.006). The median level of suspicion did not differ significantly. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all anatomic regions of the pelvis. Conclusion: Both modalities identified suspicious LNs that were missed by the other. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all

Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early. OBJECTIVE: To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted. CONCLUSIONS: We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-o

Contains fulltext : 225849.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), 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 /= 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

Item does not contain fulltext, Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years +/- 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive

Contains fulltext : 217650.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 225556.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 219681.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 225861.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 218778.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 217652.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 221682.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)