PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to establish a 5-minute magnetic resonance (MR) screening protocol for prostate cancer in men before biopsy and to evaluate effects on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) V2 scoring in comparison to a conventional, fully diagnostic multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and without prior biopsy were prospectively included in this institutional review board-approved study. In all patients, an mpMRI protocol according to the PI-RADS recommendations was acquired on a 3 T MRI system. In addition, an accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging sequence was acquired using simultaneous multislice technique (DW-EPISMS). Two readers independently evaluated the images for the presence/absence of prostate cancer according to the PI-RADS criteria and for additional findings. In a first reading session, only the screening protocol consisting of axial T2-weighted and DW-EPISMS images was made available. In a subsequent reading session, the mpMRI protocol was assessed blinded to the results of the first reading, serving as reference standard. RESULTS: Both readers successfully established a final diagnosis according to the PI-RADS criteria in the screening and mpMRI protocol. Mean lesion size was 1.2 cm in the screening and 1.4 cm in the mpMRI protocol (P = 0.4) with 35% (18/52) of PI-RADS IV/V lesions. Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% for both readers with no significant differences in comparison to the mpMRI standard (P = 1.0). In 3 patients, suspicious lymph nodes were reported as additional finding, which were equally detectable in the screening and mpMRI protocol. CONCLUSIONS: A 5-minute MR screening protocol for prostate cancer in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels before biopsy is applicable for clinical routine with similar diagnostic performance as the full diagnostic mpMRI approach.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to establish a 5-minute magnetic resonance (MR) screening protocol for prostate cancer in men before biopsy and to evaluate effects on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) V2 scoring in comparison to a conventional, fully diagnostic multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and without prior biopsy were prospectively included in this institutional review board-approved study. In all patients, an mpMRI protocol according to the PI-RADS recommendations was acquired on a 3 T MRI system. In addition, an accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging sequence was acquired using simultaneous multislice technique (DW-EPISMS). Two readers independently evaluated the images for the presence/absence of prostate cancer according to the PI-RADS criteria and for additional findings. In a first reading session, only the screening protocol consisting of axial T2-weighted and DW-EPISMS images was made available. In a subsequent reading session, the mpMRI protocol was assessed blinded to the results of the first reading, serving as reference standard. RESULTS: Both readers successfully established a final diagnosis according to the PI-RADS criteria in the screening and mpMRI protocol. Mean lesion size was 1.2 cm in the screening and 1.4 cm in the mpMRI protocol (P = 0.4) with 35% (18/52) of PI-RADS IV/V lesions. Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% for both readers with no significant differences in comparison to the mpMRI standard (P = 1.0). In 3 patients, suspicious lymph nodes were reported as additional finding, which were equally detectable in the screening and mpMRI protocol. CONCLUSIONS: A 5-minute MR screening protocol for prostate cancer in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels before biopsy is applicable for clinical routine with similar diagnostic performance as the full diagnostic mpMRI approach.
Authors: Verena C Obmann; Shivani Pahwa; William Tabayayong; Yun Jiang; Gregory O'Connor; Sara Dastmalchian; John Lu; Soham Shah; Karin A Herrmann; Raj Paspulati; Gregory MacLennan; Lee Ponsky; Robert Abouassaly; Vikas Gulani Journal: Urology Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Daniel Stocker; Andrei Manoliu; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Nanz; Markus Klarhöfer; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Giorgio Brembilla; Francesco Giganti; Harbir Sidhu; Massimo Imbriaco; Sue Mallett; Armando Stabile; Alex Freeman; Hashim U Ahmed; Caroline Moore; Mark Emberton; Shonit Punwani Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432