Akhil Muthigi1, Abhinav Sidana2, Arvin K George2, Michael Kongnyuy2, Mahir Maruf2, Subin Valayil2, Bradford J Wood3, Peter A Pinto2. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: akhilmuth@gmail.com. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance (MR) -targeted biopsy have a growing role in the screening and evaluation of prostate cancer. We aim to evaluate the current knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns of urologists regarding this new technique. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists' beliefs and use of prostate multiparametric MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. The survey was sent to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology, the Endourological Society, and European Association of Urology. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors for use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 302 responses were received (Endourological Society: 175, European Association of Urology: 23, and Society of Urologic Oncology: 104). Most respondents (83.6%) believe MR-targeted biopsy to be moderately to extremely beneficial in the evaluation of prostate cancer. Overall, 85.7% of responders use prostate MRI in their practice, and 63.0% use MR-targeted biopsy. The 2 most common settings for use of MR-targeted biopsy include patients with history of prior negative biopsy result (96.3%) and monitoring patients on active surveillance (72.5%). In those who do not use MR-targeted biopsy, the principal reasons were lack of necessary infrastructure (64.1%) and prohibitive costs (48.1%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, practice in an academic setting (1.86 [1.02-3.40], P = 0.043) and performing greater than 25 radical prostatectomies per year (2.32 [1.18-4.56], P = 0.015) remained independent predictors for using MR-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents of our survey look favorably on use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy in clinical practice. Over time, reduction in fixed costs and easier access to equipment may lead to further dissemination of this novel and potentially transformative technology. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance (MR) -targeted biopsy have a growing role in the screening and evaluation of prostate cancer. We aim to evaluate the current knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns of urologists regarding this new technique. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists' beliefs and use of prostate multiparametric MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. The survey was sent to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology, the Endourological Society, and European Association of Urology. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors for use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 302 responses were received (Endourological Society: 175, European Association of Urology: 23, and Society of Urologic Oncology: 104). Most respondents (83.6%) believe MR-targeted biopsy to be moderately to extremely beneficial in the evaluation of prostate cancer. Overall, 85.7% of responders use prostate MRI in their practice, and 63.0% use MR-targeted biopsy. The 2 most common settings for use of MR-targeted biopsy include patients with history of prior negative biopsy result (96.3%) and monitoring patients on active surveillance (72.5%). In those who do not use MR-targeted biopsy, the principal reasons were lack of necessary infrastructure (64.1%) and prohibitive costs (48.1%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, practice in an academic setting (1.86 [1.02-3.40], P = 0.043) and performing greater than 25 radical prostatectomies per year (2.32 [1.18-4.56], P = 0.015) remained independent predictors for using MR-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents of our survey look favorably on use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy in clinical practice. Over time, reduction in fixed costs and easier access to equipment may lead to further dissemination of this novel and potentially transformative technology. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Brandon J Otto; E Charles Osterberg; Sanjay Salgado; Douglas S Scherr; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey W Nix; Baris Turkbey; Anthony Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Nitin Yerram; Celene Chua; W Marston Linehan; Bradford Wood; Peter Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Arvin K George; Rachel Rubin; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Howard L Parnes; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Steven F Abboud; Arvin K George; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Raju Chelluri; Michele Fascelli; Joanna Shih; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi; Oksana Yaskiv; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Peter N Wiklund; Charles Henry Rochat; Prokar Dasgupta; Benjamin J Challacombe; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Stefan Siemer; Nazareno Suardi; Giacomo Novara; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M Kongnyuy; M M Siddiqui; A K George; A Muthigi; A Sidana; M Maruf; B Turkbey; P L Choyke; B J Wood; P A Pinto Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Liam C Macleod; Jonathan G Yabes; Mina M Fam; Jathin Bandari; Michelle Yu; Avinash Maganty; Alessandro Furlan; Christopher P Filson; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Rachael L Sherrer; Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Kristin K Porter; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.554