Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Radiological staging of prostate cancer with mpMRI leads to a possible Will Rogers phenomenon. • Our modified EAU risk group model that incorporates mpMRI provides a more precise risk stratification. • Predictive models using both DRE and mpMRI have the best predictive value for PFS. We aimed to test whether the current practice of using mpMRI stage might lead to a Will Rogers phenomenon with a stage migration compared to DRE in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. A total of 572 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at a single institution (2007–2017) were included. Clinical stage using digital rectal examination was determined on table by the operating surgeon; mpMRI and pathological stage were recorded after tumor board review. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as no rising PSA, no adjuvant/salvage treatment, and no metastases or mortality. PFS was compared between groups and a model incorporating mpMRI into the EAU risk groups was created. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58.5–67) and median PSA was 8.9 ng/ml (IQR 6.5–13.2). Using DRE stage, 20% were NCCN low risk, 43% were intermediate, and 37% high. Median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 22–73). Estimated PFS at 1, 3, and 5 years was 75%, 59%, and 54%, respectively. When comparing PFS between DRE and mpMRI stages, patients deemed T1 (P < 0.01) or T3 (P = 0.03) by mpMRI showed better outcomes than patients staged T1 or T3 by DRE. On univariable analysis lower risk for failure was seen for MRI T1 disease (HR 0.10 95%, CI 0.01–0.73, P = 0.02) or MRI T3 (HR 0.70, CI 0.51–0.97, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, only MRI T1 remained a significant predictor (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01–0.59, P = 0.01). The subsequent, modified EAU risk model using both DRE and mpMRI performed significantly better than the DRE model. PFS based on mpMRI is not the same as DRE staging. Current risk groups which use DRE should be used with caution in whom local stage is based on mpMRI. Our modified EAU-risk categories can provide greater accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]