Literature DB >> 31650967

Assessment of the compliance with minimum acceptable technical parameters proposed by PI-RADS v2 guidelines in multiparametric prostate MRI acquisition in tertiary referral hospitals in the Republic of Turkey.

Mehmet Coşkun1, Ali Fırat Sarp2, Şebnem Karasu3, Mustafa Fazıl Gelal3, Barış Türkbey4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although the clinical use of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasing, the adherence to parameters for mpMRI, which had been described in the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for an optimum image acquisition is unknown. In this paper, we aimed to determine the compliance with the minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI defined by PI-RADS v2 in tertiary care centers in Turkey.
METHODS: We sent a survey to all radiology departments of tertiary referral hospitals in Turkey (n=120) to evaluate their adherence to PI-RADS v2 technical specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher exact, ANOVA, and the Student t tests. The cutoff values for image acquisition times were also determined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: One hundred and eleven clinics responded to our survey (response rate, 92.5%). Prostate MRI was reported to be performed in 61 centers, of which 26 (42.6%) used 3 T (Tesla) scanner while 35 (57.4%) used 1.5 T. The adherence to slice thickness, in-plane phase and frequency resolutions on T2-weighted imaging were 68.9%, 41%, and 9.8%, respectively. The adherence to the same parameters on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were higher compared with T2-weighted imaging (85.2%, 62.3%, and 78.7%, respectively). In comparative analysis, the adherence to slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and in-plane phase resolution on T2-weighted imaging were higher for 3 T compared with 1.5 T scanners (P = 0.004, P = 0.041, and P = 0.001, respectively). T2-weighted imaging acquisition time was significantly longer for the centers that adhered to FOV (P = 0.034) and in-plane T2-weighted imaging phase resolution (P = 0.028). The DWI scan time was significantly longer when they adhered to DWI-FOV (P = 0.014) and b value ≥1400 s/mm2 (P = 0.008). The calculated cutoff of scan times were 220 s in T2-weighted imaging and 312 s in DWI to ensure the compliance with voxel sizes and b value criteria.
CONCLUSION: The tertiary referral centers in Turkey did not meet majority of the technical specifications of PI-RADS v2 during prostate MRI acquisition. Awareness to the minimum acceptable technical parameters of mpMRI should be increased to potentially improve the quality of prostate cancer imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31650967      PMCID: PMC6837294          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2019.18537

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  15 in total

1.  How and why a generation of radiologists must be trained to accurately interpret prostate mpMRI.

Authors:  Rajan T Gupta; Benjamin Spilseth; Adam T Froemming
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

Review 2.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sadhna Verma; Peter Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Scott E Eggener; Krishnanath Gaitonde; Masoom A Haider; Daniel J Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Peter Pinto; Geoffrey A Sonn; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Imaging Facilities' Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI.

Authors:  Steven J Esses; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Multiparametric MRI guidance in first-time prostate biopsies: what is the real benefit?

Authors:  Ömer Acar; Tarık Esen; Bülent Çolakoğlu; Metin Vural; Aslıhan Onay; Yeşim Sağlıcan; Barış Türkbey; İzzet Rozanes
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.630

5.  Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging.

Authors:  Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Robin Bruhn; Nils Krämer; Sven Nebelung; Axel Heidenreich; Simone Schrading
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Evolving Use of Prebiopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Medicare Population.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jennifer Hemingway; Danny R Hughes; Richard Duszak; Bibb Allen; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  PRECISION MANAGEMENT OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER.

Authors:  David J VanderWeele; Baris Turkbey; Adam G Sowalsky
Journal:  Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev       Date:  2016-12-12

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Evaluation of PCA3 and multiparametric MRI's: collective benefits before deciding initial prostate biopsy for patients with PSA level between 3-10ng/mL.

Authors:  Sezgin Okcelik; Hasan Soydan; Ferhat Ates; Ufuk Berber; Hasan Saygin; Guner Sonmez; Kenan Karademir
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Deep learning-based artificial intelligence applications in prostate MRI: brief summary.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Masoom A Haider
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Imaging quality and prostate MR: it is time to improve.

Authors:  Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Tobias Penzkofer; Anwar R Padhani; Baris Turkbey; Masoom A Haider; Henkjan Huisman; Jochen Walz; Georg Salomon; Ivo G Schoots; Jonathan Richenberg; Geert Villeirs; Valeria Panebianco; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Berg Logager; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score.

Authors:  Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.039

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.