James L Leake1, Rulon Hardman2, Vijayanadh Ojili1, Ian Thompson3, Alampady Shanbhogue1, Javier Hernandez3, Jelle Barentsz4. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Electronic address: HardmanR@uthscsa.edu. 3. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 4. Department of Radiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: MRI of the prostate has increasingly become more important in clinical medicine because of the risk of over-detection of low-grade, low-volume prostate cancer, as well as because of the poor sampling of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in high-risk patients. We sought to determine the access, imaging protocols, and indications for MRI imaging of the prostate in the United States. METHODS: A brief survey was sent through mailing lists to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and Texas Radiological Society. RESULTS: Thirty-six academic centers responded to the survey, 88.9% of which routinely perform prostate MRI. Nine centers routinely performed imaging at 1.5T with an endorectal coil (25%), 11 performed at 3.0T without an endorectal coil (31%), and 10 performed at 3.0T with an endorectal coil (28%). All institutions used T1-weighted axial and orthogonal T2-weighted sequences. Most groups used diffusion-weighted imaging (94.7%) and dynamic contrast enhancement (81.6%). Only 21.1% of groups performing prostate MRI routinely performed MR spectroscopy as part of their protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI is becoming a commonly performed examination at academic institutions, with most locations performing prostate MRI at minimum standards. There is a need to educate nonacademic practices regarding the addition of functional MRI techniques to anatomic techniques, increase the number of institutions that regularly perform prostate MRI, and increase access to direct MRI-guided biopsy in institutions that perform prostate MRI on a regular basis.
PURPOSE: MRI of the prostate has increasingly become more important in clinical medicine because of the risk of over-detection of low-grade, low-volume prostate cancer, as well as because of the poor sampling of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in high-risk patients. We sought to determine the access, imaging protocols, and indications for MRI imaging of the prostate in the United States. METHODS: A brief survey was sent through mailing lists to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and Texas Radiological Society. RESULTS: Thirty-six academic centers responded to the survey, 88.9% of which routinely perform prostate MRI. Nine centers routinely performed imaging at 1.5T with an endorectal coil (25%), 11 performed at 3.0T without an endorectal coil (31%), and 10 performed at 3.0T with an endorectal coil (28%). All institutions used T1-weighted axial and orthogonal T2-weighted sequences. Most groups used diffusion-weighted imaging (94.7%) and dynamic contrast enhancement (81.6%). Only 21.1% of groups performing prostate MRI routinely performed MR spectroscopy as part of their protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI is becoming a commonly performed examination at academic institutions, with most locations performing prostate MRI at minimum standards. There is a need to educate nonacademic practices regarding the addition of functional MRI techniques to anatomic techniques, increase the number of institutions that regularly perform prostate MRI, and increase access to direct MRI-guided biopsy in institutions that perform prostate MRI on a regular basis.
Authors: Piotr Kozlowski; Silvia D Chang; Ran Meng; Burkhard Mädler; Robert Bell; Edward C Jones; S Larry Goldenberg Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicholas J van As; Nandita M de Souza; Sophie F Riches; Veronica A Morgan; Sayid A Sohaib; David P Dearnaley; Chris C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-12-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michelle D Bardis; Roozbeh Houshyar; Peter D Chang; Alexander Ushinsky; Justin Glavis-Bloom; Chantal Chahine; Thanh-Lan Bui; Mark Rupasinghe; Christopher G Filippi; Daniel S Chow Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 6.639