Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality.
Methods
A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes.
Results
Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker.
Conclusions
An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments.
Key Points
• Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations.
• Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI.
• To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.
Funder
Radboud University Medical Center
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Reference30 articles.
1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2019) EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines 2019 Edition. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
2. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S et al (2020) Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 203:706–712
3. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 72:250–266
4. Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G et al (2018) Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol 74:48–54
5. Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D et al (2020) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77:78–94