BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may have a role in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with raised serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Variations in technique and the interpretation of images have contributed to inconsistency in its reported performance characteristics. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to make recommendations on a standardised method for the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of prostate mpMRI for prostate cancer detection and localisation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A consensus meeting of 16 European prostate cancer experts was held that followed the UCLA-RAND Appropriateness Method and facilitated by an independent chair. MEASUREMENT: Before the meeting, 520 items were scored for "appropriateness" by panel members, discussed face to face, and rescored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Agreement was reached in 67% of 260 items related to imaging sequence parameters. T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted MRI were the key sequences incorporated into the minimum requirements. Consensus was also reached on 54% of 260 items related to image interpretation and reporting, including features of malignancy on individual sequences. A 5-point scale was agreed on for communicating the probability of malignancy, with a minimum of 16 prostatic regions of interest, to include a pictorial representation of suspicious foci. Limitations relate to consensus methodology. Dominant personalities are known to affect the opinions of the group and were countered by a neutral chairperson. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on a number of areas related to the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of mpMRI for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer. Before optimal dissemination of this technology, these outcomes will require formal validation in prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may have a role in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with raised serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Variations in technique and the interpretation of images have contributed to inconsistency in its reported performance characteristics. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to make recommendations on a standardised method for the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of prostate mpMRI for prostate cancer detection and localisation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A consensus meeting of 16 European prostate cancer experts was held that followed the UCLA-RAND Appropriateness Method and facilitated by an independent chair. MEASUREMENT: Before the meeting, 520 items were scored for "appropriateness" by panel members, discussed face to face, and rescored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Agreement was reached in 67% of 260 items related to imaging sequence parameters. T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted MRI were the key sequences incorporated into the minimum requirements. Consensus was also reached on 54% of 260 items related to image interpretation and reporting, including features of malignancy on individual sequences. A 5-point scale was agreed on for communicating the probability of malignancy, with a minimum of 16 prostatic regions of interest, to include a pictorial representation of suspicious foci. Limitations relate to consensus methodology. Dominant personalities are known to affect the opinions of the group and were countered by a neutral chairperson. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on a number of areas related to the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of mpMRI for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer. Before optimal dissemination of this technology, these outcomes will require formal validation in prospective trials.
Authors: Anthony N Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Nitin K Yerram; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; W Marston Linehan; Bradford Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Curr Opin Urol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.309
Authors: D Gabriele; D Collura; M Oderda; I Stura; C Fiorito; F Porpiglia; C Terrone; M Zacchero; C Guiot; P Gabriele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michael Quentin; Lars Schimmöller; Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Gerald Antoch; Peter Albers; Dirk Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 5.315