Improvement prostate cancer detection rate of suspicious lesions through MRI/TRUS fusion guided biopsy by a multiteam of radiologists

Background The objective of our study was to analyze the data of our biopsies, determine a detection rate (DR), compare it with the data in the literature and draw possible deductions, so as to offer the patient the possibility of not having other biopsies in the future. Methods We have enrolled 189 biopsy-naive patients in the period between September 2018 and December 2020. Each patient underwent multiparametric (mp)-MRI which was reviewed by our team of radiologists. In our center, each examination is examined by 4 radiologists separately with an overall final result. Through the t student test, any statistically significant differences between the DRs and the concordance rate between the positive cores and the suspected area on MRI were analyzed for each urologist who performed the procedure. Results The absolute (DR) was 69.3% (131/189 patients). The relative DR for each PIRADS score was 41% for PIRADS 3, 70.2% for PIRADS 4, 89.3% for PIRADS 5. We found a high percentage of agreement between the positive biopsy samples and the suspicious area identified on MRI: 90.8% (119/131 patients). There were no statistically significant differences between the DRs of the urologists who performed the procedure (p = 0.89), nor for the percentage of agreement between the positivity of the core and the suspected area on MRI (p = 0.92). Conclusions MRI in the future could become the gold standard for performing MRI fusion-guided biopsies to have a better diagnostic result and avoid rebiopsies. A team MRI reading allows greater accuracy in identifying the suspected lesion, which is demonstrated by a high rate of agreement with the positivity of the cores (90.8%). There is a cost problem due to the need to carry out the mpMRI but it could have less impact in the future. In addition, the MRI provides useful information on the extent of the disease (e.g., cT3a/b) which allows you to better plan the surgical strategy or other therapies.

Structured reporting in radiologic education – Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies

Objectives: To evaluate the efficiency of structured reporting in radiologic education – based on the example of different PI-RADS score versions for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. Methods: MpMRI of 688 prostate lesions in 180 patients were retrospectively reviewed by an experienced radiologist and by a student using PI-RADS V1 and V2. Data sets were reviewed for changes according to PI-RADS V2.1. The results were correlated with results obtained by MR-guided biopsy. Diagnostic potency was evaluated by ROC analysis. Sensitivity, specificity and correct-graded samples were evaluated for different cutpoints. The agreement between radiologist and student was determined for the aggregation of the PI-RADS score in three categories. The student’s time needed for evaluation was measured. Results: The area under curve of the ROC analysis was 0.782/0.788 (V1/V2) for the student and 0.841/0.833 (V1/V2) for the radiologist. The agreement between student and radiologist showed a Cohen‘s weighted κ coefficient of 0.495 for V1 and 0.518 for V2. Median student’s time needed for score assessment was 4:34 min for PI-RADSv1 and 2:00 min for PI-RADSv2 (p < 0.001). Re-evaluation for V2.1 changed the category in 1.4% of all ratings. Conclusion: The capacity of prostate cancer detection using PI-RADS V1 and V2 is dependent on the reader‘s experience. The results from the two observers indicate that structured reporting using PI-RADS and, controlled by histopathology, can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in students‘ or residents’ education. Herein, V2 was superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy. Advances in knowledge: Structured reporting can be a valuable and quantifiable tool in radiologic education. Structured reporting using PI-RADS can be used by a student with good performance. PI-RADS V2 is superior to V1 in terms of inter-observer agreement and time efficacy.