Literature DB >> 33566638

Practice Patterns and Challenges of Performing and Interpreting Prostate MRI: A Survey by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Disease-Focused Panel.

Silvia D Chang1, Daniel J A Margolis2, Baris Turkbey3, Abigail A Arnold4, Sadhna Verma5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to report on the practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. An electronic survey regarding prostate MRI practice patterns and challenges was sent to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. RESULTS. The response rate was 15% (212/1446). Most (65%) of the respondents were academic abdominal radiologists with 1-5 (52%), 6-10 (20%), 11-20 (15%), and more than 20 (5%) years of experience in reporting prostate MRI. The numbers of prostate MRI examinations reported per week were 0-5 (43%), 6-10 (38%), 11-20 (12%), 21-30 (5%), and more than 30 (2%). Imaging was performed at 3 T (58%), 1.5 T (20%), or either (21%), and most examinations (83%) were performed without an endorectal coil. Highest b values ranged from 800 to 5000 s/mm2; 1400 s/mm2 (26%) and 1500 s/mm2 (30%) were the most common. Most respondents (79%) acquired dynamic contrast-enhanced images with temporal resolution of less than 10 seconds. Most (71%) of the prostate MRI studies were used for fusion biopsy. PI-RADS version 2 was used by 92% of the respondents and template reporting by 80%. Challenges to performing and interpreting prostate MRI were scored on a 1-5 Likert scale (1, easy; 2, somewhat easy; 3, neutral; 4, somewhat difficult; 5, very difficult). The median scores were 2 or 3 for patient preparatory factors. Image acquisition and reporting factors were scored 1-2, except for performing spectroscopy or using an endorectal coil, both of which scored 4. Acquiring patient history scored 2 and quality factors scored 3. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists perform prostate MRI at 3 T without an endorectal coil and interpret the images using PI-RADS version 2. Challenges include obtaining quality images, acquiring feedback, and variability in the interpretation of PI-RADS scores.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; PI-RADS; practice patterns; prostate; survey

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33566638      PMCID: PMC9254902          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   6.582


  32 in total

1.  Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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

3.  Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding--multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning.

Authors:  Tobias Franiel; Carsten Stephan; Andreas Erbersdobler; Ekkehart Dietz; Andreas Maxeiner; Nina Hell; Alexander Huppertz; Kurt Miller; Ralph Strecker; Bernd Hamm
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Yasushi Kaji; Yoshitatsu Fukabori; Ken-ichiro Yoshida; Narufumi Suganuma; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Akihiro Tanimoto; Jun Nakashima; Hidaka Kohno; Hiroshi Shinmoto; Sachio Kuribayashi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Prostate cancer: 1HMRS-DCEMR at 3T versus [(18)F]choline PET/CT in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence in men with biochemical progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

Authors:  Valeria Panebianco; Alessandro Sciarra; Danilo Lisi; Francesca Galati; Valeria Buonocore; Carlo Catalano; Vincenzo Gentile; Andrea Laghi; Roberto Passariello
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Optimal high b-value for diffusion weighted MRI in diagnosing high risk prostate cancers in the peripheral zone.

Authors:  Harsh K Agarwal; Francesca V Mertan; Sandeep Sankineni; Marcelino Bernardo; Julien Senegas; Jochen Keupp; Dagane Daar; Maria Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Thoracic Imaging-Current Practices and Utility: Survey of the Society of Thoracic Radiology.

Authors:  Prabhakar Rajiah
Journal:  J Thorac Imaging       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.000

10.  National Survey of Patterns Employing Targeted MRI/US Guided Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Graham M Tooker; Hong Truong; Peter A Pinto; Minhaj M Siddiqui
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.