Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice.

Purpose: To assess the added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) in prostate MR in clinical practice.Methods: Two hundred sixty-four patients underwent prostate MRI, with T2 and DWI sequences initially interpreted, prior to full multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpretation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:European Radiology Vol. 30; no. 7; pp. 4039 - 4050
Autores principales: Zawaideh, Jeries P., Sala, Evis, Shaida, Nadeem, Koo, Brendan, Warren, Anne Y., Carmisciano, Luca, Saeb-Parsy, Kasra, Gnanapragasam, Vincent J., Kastner, Christof, Barrett, Tristan
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Jul2020
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=143855666&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 143855666
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        09387994
        NPH
      jtl: European Radiology
      issn: 09387994
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2020
      vid: 30
      iid: 7
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        143855666
        143855666
        143979314
        NLM32166495
        10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0
        NLM32166495
        143855666
      ppf: 4039
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice.
      aug:
        au:
          Zawaideh, Jeries P.
          Sala, Evis
          Shaida, Nadeem
          Koo, Brendan
          Warren, Anne Y.
          Carmisciano, Luca
          Saeb-Parsy, Kasra
          Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
          Kastner, Christof
          Barrett, Tristan
        affil: Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
      sug:
        subj:
          Prostatic Neoplasms
          Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods
          Contrast Media Administration and Dosage
          Middle Age
          Prospective Studies
          Retrospective Design
          Male
          Aged
          Aged, 80 and Over
          Adult
          Biopsy
          Prostatic Neoplasms Pathology
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          Scales
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Aged, 80 & over
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Male
      ab: Purpose: To assess the added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) in prostate MR in clinical practice.Methods: Two hundred sixty-four patients underwent prostate MRI, with T2 and DWI sequences initially interpreted, prior to full multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpretation using a Likert 1-5 scale. A prospective opinion was given on likely benefit of contrast prior to review of the DCE sequence, and retrospectively following full mpMRI review. The final histology result following targeted and/or systematic biopsy of the prostate was used for outcome purposes.Results: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and mpMRI were assigned the same score in 86% of cases; when dichotomising to a negative or positive MRI (Likert score ≥ 3), concordance increased to 92.8%. At Likert score ≥ 3 bpMRI detected 89.9% of all cancers and 93.5% clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) and mpMRI 90.7% and 94.6%, respectively. mpMRI had fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%) and a lower Likert 3 rate (8.3% vs 17%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%), but similar sensitivity (95% versus 94%) and ROC-AUC (90% vs 89%). At a positive MRI threshold of Likert ≥ 4, mpMRI had a higher sensitivity than bpMRI (89% versus 80%) and detected more csPCa (89.2% versus 79.6%). DCE was prospectively considered of potential benefit in 27.3%, but readers would only recall 11% of patients for DCE sequences, mainly to assess score 3 peripheral zone lesions. Following full mpMRI review, DCE was considered helpful in 28.4% of cases; in 23/75 (30.6%) of these cases this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence, reasons included increased confidence, presence of "safety-net" lesions or inflammatory lesions.Conclusion: BpMRI has equivalent cancer detection rates to mpMRI; however, mpMRI had fewer Likert 3 call rates and increased specificity and was subjectively considered of benefit by readers in 28.4% of cases.Key Points: • bpMRI has similar cancer detection rates to the full mpMRI protocol at a positive MRI threshold of Likert 3. • mpMRI had fewer intermediate category 3 calls (8.3%) than bpMRI (17%) and fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%). • Readers considered DCE beneficial in 28.4% of cases, but in a relatively high number (30.6%) this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N