Dataset Information

Results from a PI-RADS-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for biopsy-naive patients in a non-university hospital.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess the safety and performance of a MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for patients with first-time suspicion of prostate cancer in a non-university hospital.

Methods

Between May 2017 and December 2018 all biopsy-naive patients examined in our hospital followed a MRI-directed diagnostic work-up algorithm based on PI-RADS score. In short, PI-RADS 1-2 was generally not biopsied and PI-RADS 3-5 was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team. Patients with PI-RADS 4-5 were all referred to biopsy, either transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI in-bore biopsy for small tumors and for sites difficult to access. PI-RADS scores were compared to the histopathology from biopsies and surgical specimens for patients who had prostatectomy. Non-biopsied patients were referred to a safety net monitoring regimen.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight men were enrolled. 97 (33%) had PI-RADS 1-2, 44 (15%) had PI-RADS 3, and 157 (53%) had PI-RADS 4-5. 116 (39%) of the patients avoided biopsy. None of these were diagnosed with significant cancer within 2-3.5 years of safety net monitoring. Almost all high ISUP grade groups (≥ 3) were in the PI-RADS 4-5 category (98%). Prostatectomy specimens and systematic biopsies from MRI-negative areas indicated that very few clinically significant cancers were missed by the MRI-directed diagnostic pathway.

Conclusion

Our findings add to evidence that a MRI-directed diagnostic pathway can be safely established in a non-university hospital. The pathway reduced the number of biopsies and reliably detected the site of the most aggressive cancers.

SUBMITTER: Reijnen JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8590681 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale and objectiveThe Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) published a set of minimum technical standards (MTS) to improve image quality and reduce variability in multiparametric prostate MRI. The effect of PIRADSv2 MTS on image quality has not been validated. We aimed to determine whether adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS improves study adequacy and perceived quality.Materials and methodsSixty-two prostate MRI examinations including T2 weighted (T2W) and diffusion weighted image (DWI) consecutively referred to our center from 62 different institutions within a 12-month period (September 2017 to September 2018) were included. Six readers assessed images as adequate or inadequate for use in PCa detection and a numerical image quality ranking was given using a 1-5 scale. The PI-RADSv2 MTS were synthesized into sets of seven and 10 rules for T2W and DWI, respectively. Image adherence was assessed using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata. Statistical analysis of survey results and image adherence was performed based on reader quality scoring (Kendall Rank tau-b) and reader adequate scoring (Wilcoxon test for association) for T2 and DWI quality assessment.ResultsOut of 62 images, 52 (83%) T2W and 38 (61%) DWIs were rated to be adequate by a majority of readers. Reader adequacy scores showed no significant association with adherence to PI-RADSv2. There was a weak (tau-b = 0.22) but significant (p value = 0.01) correlation between adherence to PIRADSv2 MTS and image quality for T2W. Studies following all PI-RADSv2 T2W rules achieved a higher median average quality score (3.58 for 7/7 vs. 3.0 for <7/7, p = 0.012). No statistical relationship with PI-RADSv2 MTS adherence and DWI quality was found.ConclusionAmong 62 sites performing prostate MRI, few were considered of high quality, but the majority were considered adequate. DWI showed considerably lower rates of adequate studies in the sample. Adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS did not increase the likelihood of having a qualitatively adequate T2W or DWI.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Risk models (RM) need external validation to assess their value beyond the setting in which they were developed. We validated a RM combining mpMRI and clinical parameters for the probability of harboring significant prostate cancer (sPC, Gleason Score ? 3+4) for biopsy-naïve men. MATERIAL AND METHODS:The original RM was based on data of 670 biopsy-naïve men from Heidelberg University Hospital who underwent mpMRI with PI-RADS scoring prior to MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy 2012-2015. Validity was tested by a consecutive cohort of biopsy-naïve men from Heidelberg (n = 160) and externally by a cohort of 133 men from University College London Hospital (UCLH). Assessment of validity was performed at fusion-biopsy by calibration plots, receiver operating characteristics curve and decision curve analyses. The RM`s performance was compared to ERSPC-RC3, ERSPC-RC3+PI-RADSv1.0 and PI-RADSv1.0 alone. RESULTS:SPC was detected in 76 men (48%) at Heidelberg and 38 men (29%) at UCLH. The areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.86 for the RM in both cohorts. For ERSPC-RC3+PI-RADSv1.0 the AUC was 0.84 in Heidelberg and 0.82 at UCLH, for ERSPC-RC3 0.76 at Heidelberg and 0.77 at UCLH and for PI-RADSv1.0 0.79 in Heidelberg and 0.82 at UCLH. Calibration curves suggest that prevalence of sPC needs to be adjusted to local circumstances, as the RM overestimated the risk of harboring sPC in the UCLH cohort. After prevalence-adjustment with respect to the prevalence underlying ERSPC-RC3 to ensure a generalizable comparison, not only between the Heidelberg and die UCLH subgroup, the RM`s Net benefit was superior over the ERSPC`s and the mpMRI`s for threshold probabilities above 0.1 in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:The RM discriminated well between men with and without sPC at initial MRI-targeted biopsy but overestimated the sPC-risk at UCLH. Taking prevalence into account, the model demonstrated benefit compared with clinical risk calculators and PI-RADSv1.0 in making the decision to biopsy men at suspicion of PC. However, prevalence differences must be taken into account when using or validating the presented risk model.

Project description:Despite the key-role of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer (PCa), this system remains to be affected by several limitations, primarily associated with the interpretation of equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions and with the debated role of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI), which is only used to upgrade peripheral PI-RADS category 3 lesions to PI-RADS category 4 if enhancement is focal. We aimed at investigating the usefulness of radiomics for detection of PCa lesions (Gleason Score ≥ 6) in PI-RADS 3 lesions and in peripheral PI-RADS 3 upgraded to PI-RADS 4 lesions (upPI-RADS 4). Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data of patients who underwent prostatic mpMRI between April 2013 and September 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Biopsy results were used as gold standard. PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 lesions were re-scored according to the PI-RADS v2.1 before and after DCE-MRI evaluation. Radiomic features were extracted from T2-weighted MRI (T2), Apparent diffusion Coefficient (ADC) map and DCE-MRI subtracted images using PyRadiomics. Feature selection was performed using Wilcoxon-ranksum test and Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR). Predictive models were constructed for PCa detection in PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions using at each step an imbalance-adjusted bootstrap resampling (IABR) on 1000 samples. 41 PI-RADS 3 and 32 upPI-RADS 4 lesions were analyzed. Among 293 radiomic features, the top selected features derived from T2 and ADC. For PI-RADS 3 stratification, second order model showed higher performances (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve-AUC- = 80%), while for upPI-RADS 4 stratification, first order model showed higher performances respect to superior order models (AUC = 89%). Our results support the significant role of T2 and ADC radiomic features for PCa detection in lesions scored as PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4. Radiomics models showed high diagnostic efficacy in classify PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions, outperforming PI-RADS v2.1 performance.