Armando Stabile1, Francesco Giganti2, Veeru Kasivisvanathan3, Gianluca Giannarini4, Caroline M Moore3, Anwar R Padhani5, Valeria Panebianco6, Andrew B Rosenkrantz7, Georg Salomon8, Baris Turkbey9, Geert Villeirs10, Jelle O Barentsz11. 1. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: armando.stabile88@gmail.com. 2. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Urology Unit, Academic Medical Centre, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Udine, Italy. 5. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. 6. Department of Radiology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 8. Prostate Cancer Center, Martini-Klinik Hamburg, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 11. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify which factors impact the accuracy of the MRI pathway and how. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically reported the factors influencing the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). These factors are significantly related to each other, with the experience of the radiologists being the dominating factor. In order to deliver the benefits of mpMRI to diagnose csPCa, it is necessary to develop expertise for both radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment guidelines.
CONTEXT: There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify which factors impact the accuracy of the MRI pathway and how. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically reported the factors influencing the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). These factors are significantly related to each other, with the experience of the radiologists being the dominating factor. In order to deliver the benefits of mpMRI to diagnose csPCa, it is necessary to develop expertise for both radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment guidelines.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicholas A Pickersgill; Joel M Vetter; Gerald L Andriole; Anup S Shetty; Kathryn J Fowler; Aaron J Mintz; Cary L Siegel; Eric H Kim Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-10-14
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Abimbola Ayoola; David Hoffman; Anunita Khasgiwala; Vinay Prabhu; Paul Smereka; Molly Somberg; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniel N Costa; Qing Yuan; Yin Xi; Neil M Rofsky; Robert E Lenkinski; Yair Lotan; Claus G Roehrborn; Franto Francis; Debbie Travalini; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Nikolaos Dikaios; Francesco Giganti; Harbir S Sidhu; Edward W Johnston; Mrishta B Appayya; Lucy Simmons; Alex Freeman; Hashim U Ahmed; David Atkinson; Shonit Punwani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Ivo G Schoots; Baris Turkbey; Gianluca Giannarini; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rodrigo Delgadillo; John C Ford; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Dal Pra; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Dominik Deniffel; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Stephanie Girgis; Gerard M Healy; Neil Fleshner; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; Ants Toi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Hayley Pye; Saurabh Singh; Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Vasilis Stavrinides; Alistair Grey; Eoin Dinneen; Elly Pilavachi; Joey Clemente; Susan Heavey; Urszula Stopka-Farooqui; Benjamin S Simpson; Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Dominic Patel; Peter Barker; Keith Burling; Nicola Stevens; Tony Ng; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; David Hawkes; Daniel C Alexander; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Aiman Haider; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; David Atkinson; Clare Allen; Greg Shaw; Teresita Beeston; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Arash Latifoltojar; Edward W Johnston; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani; Hayley C Whitaker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 6.575