Dataset Information

Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.

Methods

Evaluation of prospectively acquired initial and second-opinion radiology reports of 158 patients who underwent MRI at regional hospitals prior to transperineal MR/untrasound fusion biopsy at a tertiary referral centre over a 3-year period. Gleason score (GS) 7-10 cancer, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value (±95 % confidence intervals) were calculated and compared by Fisher's exact test.

Results

Disagreement between initial and tertiary centre second-opinion reports was observed in 54 % of cases (86/158). MRIs had a higher NPV for GS 7-10 in tertiary centre reads compared to initial reports (0.89 ± 0.08 vs 0.72 ± 0.16; p = 0.04), and a higher PPV in the target area for all cancer (0.61 ± 0.12 vs 0.28 ± 0.10; p = 0.01) and GS 7-10 cancer (0.43 ± 0.12 vs 0.2 3 ± 0.09; p = 0.02). For equivocal suspicion, the PPV for GS 7-10 was 0.12 ± 0.11 for tertiary centre and 0.11 ± 0.09 for initial reads; p = 1.00.

Conclusions

Second readings of prostate MRI by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre significantly improved both NPV and PPV. Reporter experience may help to reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions.

Key points

• Multiparametric MRIs were more often called negative in subspecialist reads (41 % vs 20 %). • Second readings of prostate mpMRIs by subspecialist uroradiologists significantly improved NPV and PPV. • Reporter experience may reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions. • Greater education and training of radiologists in prostate MRI interpretation is advised.

SUBMITTER: Hansen NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5408042 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy.

Hansen Nienke L NL Koo Brendan C BC Gallagher Ferdia A FA Warren Anne Y AY Doble Andrew A Gnanapragasam Vincent V Bratt Ola O Kastner Christof C Barrett Tristan T

European radiology 20161024 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.<h4>Methods</h4>Evaluation of prospectively acquired initial and second-opinion radiology reports of 158 patients who underwent MRI at regional hospitals prior to transperineal MR/untrasound fusion biopsy at a tertiary referral cen ...[more]

PMID: 27778089

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the importance of second opinion assessment for diagnostic mammography and sonography in a breast cancer centre. Material and Method: We analysed a total of 374 diagnostic mammographies and sonographies. All patients had previously undergone mammography and sonography examination in different external clinics, and the findings had been classified according to the BI-RADS system. All patients underwent additional sonography investigation in the outpatient department of our university clinic with additional mammography where necessary. The final diagnosis (histological clarification in 316 cases, follow-up in 58 cases) was compared with the BI-RADS classification made by the external clinics and by the university clinic, and the correlation between their findings and the final diagnosis was analysed. Results: The final diagnosis yielded 146 benign lesions and 228 cancers. In 74?% of cases (277/374), the BI-RADS classification of the first assessment corresponded to that of the second assessment. 26/55 lesions (47?%) were upgraded at the second assessment from BI-RADS?3 to BI-RADS?4, and 71/186 findings (38?%) were downgraded at the second assessment from BI-RADS?4 to BI-RADS?3. The correlation between the initial diagnosis made in the external facilities and the final diagnosis was low (kappa: 0.263), but the correlation between the second opinion assessment and the final diagnosis was significantly (p?<?0.001) higher (kappa: 0.765). The second assessment increased the sensitivity from 91?% (208/228) to 99?% (225/228) and the specificity from 32?% (46/146) to 74?% (108/146). 20 additional malignant lesions were only detected at the second assessment; however the second assessment also resulted in 3 additional false-negative findings. Surgical biopsy was prevented in 49 women after the second assessment. Conclusion: An independent second diagnostic evaluation can significantly improve the correlation between BI-RADS classification and the final diagnosis, resulting in a benefit for the patient.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on how to investigate men with negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B) but ongoing suspicion of cancer. Three strategies used are transperineal (TP-B), transrectal saturation (TS-B) and MRI-guided biopsy (MRI-B). We compared cancer yields of these strategies. METHODS: Papers were identified by search of Pubmed, Embase and Ovid Medline. Included studies investigated biopsy diagnostic yield in men with at least one negative TRUS-B and ongoing suspicion of prostate cancer. Data including age, PSA, number of previous biopsy episodes, number of cores at re-biopsy, cancer yield, and Gleason score of detected cancers were extracted. Meta-regression analyses were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included; 12 of TS-B, 14 of TP-B, and 20 of MRI-B, representing 4,657 patients. Mean patient age, PSA and number of previous biopsy episodes were similar between the strategies. The mean number of biopsy cores obtained by TP-B and TS-B were greater than MRI-B. Cancer detection rates were 30·0%, 36·8%, and 37·6% for TS-B, TP-B, and MRI-B respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that MRI-B had significantly higher cancer detection than TS-B. There were no significant differences however between MRI-B and TP-B, or TP-B and TS-B. In a sensitivity analysis incorporating number of previous biopsy episodes (36 studies) the difference between MRI-B and TP-B was not maintained resulting in no significant difference in cancer detection between the groups. There were no significant differences in median Gleason scores detected comparing the three strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In the re-biopsy setting, it is unclear which strategy offers the highest cancer detection rate. MRI-B may potentially detect more prostate cancers than other modalities and can achieve this with fewer biopsy cores. However, well-designed prospective studies with standardised outcome measures are needed to accurately compare modalities and define an optimum re-biopsy approach.

Project description:BackgroundMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has shown promise to improve detection of prostate cancer over conventional methods. However, most studies do not describe whether the location of mpMRI lesions match that of cancer found at biopsy, which may lead to an overestimation of accuracy.ObjectiveTo quantitate the effect of mapping locations of mpMRI lesions to locations of positive biopsy cores on the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI.Design setting and participantWe retrospectively identified patients having mpMRI of the prostate preceding prostate biopsy at three centres from 2013 to 2016. Men with targetable lesions on imaging underwent directed biopsy in addition to systematic biopsy. We correlated locations of positive mpMRI lesions with those of positive biopsy cores, defining a match when both were in the same sector of the prostate. We defined positive mpMRI as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥4 and significant cancer at biopsy as grade group ≥2.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisSensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated with and without location matching.Results and limitationsOf 446 patients, 247 (55.4%) had positive mpMRI and 232 (52.0%) had significant cancer at biopsy. Sensitivity and NPV for detecting significant cancer with location matching (both 63.4%) were decreased compared with those without location matching (77.6% and 73.9%, respectively). Of the 85 significant cancers not detected by mpMRI, most were of grade group 2 (64.7%, 55/85).ConclusionsWe report a 10-15% decrease in sensitivity and NPV when location matching was used to detect significant prostate cancer by mpMRI. False negative mpMRI remains an issue, highlighting the continued need for biopsy and for improving the standards around imaging quality and reporting.Patient summaryThe true accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) must be determined to interpret results and better counsel patients. We mapped the location of positive mpMRI lesions to where cancer was found at biopsy and found, when compared with matching to cancer anywhere in the prostate, that the accuracy of mpMRI decreased by 10-15%.

Dataset Information

Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

Publications

Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets