Rachael L Sherrer1, Win Shun Lai1, John V Thomas2, Jeffrey W Nix1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami3,4. 1. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Jefferson Tower N354, 619 19th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. sraisbahrami@uabmc.edu. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Jefferson Tower N354, 619 19th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. sraisbahrami@uabmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MRI/Ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy are relatively new techniques for improved detection, staging, and active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCa). As with all imaging modalities, MRI reveals incidental findings (IFs) which carry the risk of increased cost, patient anxiety, and iatrogenic morbidity due to workup of IFs. Herein, we report the IFs from 684 MRIs for evaluation of PCa and consider their characteristics and clinical significance. METHODS: Patients underwent mp-MRI prostate protocol incorporating triplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI as well as a post-contrast abdominopelvic MRI with the primary indication of detection or evaluation of PCa. A total of 684 consecutive prostate MRI reports performed in a series of 580 patients were reviewed. All extraprostatic findings reported were logged and then categorized by organ system and potential clinical significance. RESULTS: There were 349 true IFs found in 233 (40%) of the 580 patients. One hundred nineteen additional extraprostatic findings were unsuspected but directly related to PCa staging, while the 349 IFs were unrelated and thus truly incidental beyond study indication. While the majority of true IFs were non-urologic, only 6.6% of IFs were considered clinically significant, non-urologic findings, and more than a third of MRI reports had urologic IFs not related to PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of incidental findings on prostate indication MRI are similar to other abdominopelvic imaging studies. However, only 6.6% of the IFs were considered to be clinically significant non-urologic findings. Further investigations are needed to assess downstream workup of these IFs and resulting costs.
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MRI/Ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy are relatively new techniques for improved detection, staging, and active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCa). As with all imaging modalities, MRI reveals incidental findings (IFs) which carry the risk of increased cost, patient anxiety, and iatrogenic morbidity due to workup of IFs. Herein, we report the IFs from 684 MRIs for evaluation of PCa and consider their characteristics and clinical significance. METHODS: Patients underwent mp-MRI prostate protocol incorporating triplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI as well as a post-contrast abdominopelvic MRI with the primary indication of detection or evaluation of PCa. A total of 684 consecutive prostate MRI reports performed in a series of 580 patients were reviewed. All extraprostatic findings reported were logged and then categorized by organ system and potential clinical significance. RESULTS: There were 349 true IFs found in 233 (40%) of the 580 patients. One hundred nineteen additional extraprostatic findings were unsuspected but directly related to PCa staging, while the 349 IFs were unrelated and thus truly incidental beyond study indication. While the majority of true IFs were non-urologic, only 6.6% of IFs were considered clinically significant, non-urologic findings, and more than a third of MRI reports had urologic IFs not related to PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of incidental findings on prostate indication MRI are similar to other abdominopelvic imaging studies. However, only 6.6% of the IFs were considered to be clinically significant non-urologic findings. Further investigations are needed to assess downstream workup of these IFs and resulting costs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer staging; Incidental findings; Prostate adenocarcinoma; Public health
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Emily B Tsai; Bronislava M Sigal; Sylvia K Plevritis; Alan M Garber; Geoffrey D Rubin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ali-Reza Sharif-Afshar; Tom Feng; Steven Koopman; Christopher Nguyen; Quanlin Li; Eugene Shkolyar; Rola Saouaf; Hyung L Kim Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Anthony N Hoang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nitin Yerram; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Jeffrey W Nix; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Jimmy Machaalany; Yeung Yam; Terrence D Ruddy; Arun Abraham; Li Chen; Rob S Beanlands; Benjamin J W Chow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Filipe L F Carvalho; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Barış Türkbey; Peter A Pinto; Piyush K Agarwal Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Giuseppe Cutaia; Gaetano Tosto; Roberto Cannella; Alberto Bruno; Claudio Leto; Leonardo Salvaggio; Sofia Cutaia; Francesco Paolo Lombardo; Nino Dispensa; Dario Giambelluca; Massimo Midiri; Giuseppe Salvaggio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 3.469