Niklas Westhoff1, Fabian Siegel2, Christian Peter2, Svetlana Hetjens3, Stefan Porubsky4, Thomas Martini5, Jost von Hardenberg2, Maurice Stephan Michel2, Johannes Budjan6, Manuel Ritter2. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. niklas.westhoff@medma.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Statistics and Biometry, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Ulm, Prittwitzstraße 43, 89075, Ulm, Germany. 6. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Definition of targets in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy either by urologist or radiologist, as a prose report or by illustration is crucial for accurate targeted biopsies (TB). The objective was to analyze the effect of MRI reporting on target definition and cancer detection. METHODS: 202 patients underwent MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy with Artemis™ (Eigen, USA). mpMRI results were submitted in written form to urologists, who marked the targets in the proprietary software. An expert uroradiologist reviewed and marked mpMRI targets blinded to biopsy data. We compared number, localization and volume of targets between the observers and analyzed whether variations impaired TB results by bivariate and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Interobserver variability was moderate regarding number and low regarding localization of targets. Urologists overestimated target volumes significantly compared to radiologists (p = 0.045) and matching target volume between both observers was only 43.9%. Overall cancer detection rate was 69.8 and 52.0% by TB. A higher matching target volume was a significant predictor of cancer in TB (p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed prostate volume and PI-RADS as independent predictors. Defining targets in incorrect T2w slices in the cranio-caudal axis are one presumable reason for missing cancer in TB. CONCLUSIONS: A high concordance of the target definition between radiologist and urologist is mandatory for accurate TB. Optimized ROI definition is recommended to improve TB results, preferably as contouring in MRI sequences by the radiologist or, if not feasible, by precise MRI reports including specific localization in sequence and slice as well as an illustration. High prostate volume and low PI-RADS score have to be considered as limiting factors for target definition.
PURPOSE: Definition of targets in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy either by urologist or radiologist, as a prose report or by illustration is crucial for accurate targeted biopsies (TB). The objective was to analyze the effect of MRI reporting on target definition and cancer detection. METHODS: 202 patients underwent MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy with Artemis™ (Eigen, USA). mpMRI results were submitted in written form to urologists, who marked the targets in the proprietary software. An expert uroradiologist reviewed and marked mpMRI targets blinded to biopsy data. We compared number, localization and volume of targets between the observers and analyzed whether variations impaired TB results by bivariate and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Interobserver variability was moderate regarding number and low regarding localization of targets. Urologists overestimated target volumes significantly compared to radiologists (p = 0.045) and matching target volume between both observers was only 43.9%. Overall cancer detection rate was 69.8 and 52.0% by TB. A higher matching target volume was a significant predictor of cancer in TB (p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed prostate volume and PI-RADS as independent predictors. Defining targets in incorrect T2w slices in the cranio-caudal axis are one presumable reason for missing cancer in TB. CONCLUSIONS: A high concordance of the target definition between radiologist and urologist is mandatory for accurate TB. Optimized ROI definition is recommended to improve TB results, preferably as contouring in MRI sequences by the radiologist or, if not feasible, by precise MRI reports including specific localization in sequence and slice as well as an illustration. High prostate volume and low PI-RADS score have to be considered as limiting factors for target definition.
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-05
Authors: Máté E Maros; Chang Gyu Cho; Andreas G Junge; Benedikt Kämpgen; Victor Saase; Fabian Siegel; Frederik Trinkmann; Thomas Ganslandt; Christoph Groden; Holger Wenz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Manuel Ritter; Niklas Westhoff; Fabian Derigs; Samuel Doryumu; Fabian Tollens; Dominik Nörenberg; Manuel Neuberger; Jost von Hardenberg; Maurice Stephan Michel Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 4.226