PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: • 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: • 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.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在定义基于共识的标准，以获取和报告前列腺MRI并建立图像质量的先决条件。
方法：共有44位来自欧洲泌尿生殖道放射学学会（ESUR）和EAU泌尿系统成像部分（ESUI）的前列腺癌成像专家的领先泌尿科医师和泌尿生殖道放射科医师参与了Delphi共识过程。小组成员完成了两轮问卷，共55个项目，分为三个标题：图像质量评估，解释和报告，和放射科医生的经验加上培训中心。在55个问题中，31人被评为9分制协议，24个是多项选择或开放。对于协议项目，小组成员的共识≥70%(评分7~9分),分歧≤15%.对于其他问题，在≥50%的投票中考虑达成共识.
结果：31项协议项目中有24项和11/16其他问题达成共识。协议声明是：（1）应进行图像质量报告并将其实施到临床实践中；（2）对于解释性能，放射科医师应使用具有组织病理学反馈的自我表现测试，将他们的解释与专家阅读进行比较，并使用外部绩效评估；（3）放射科医师在解释前列腺MRI之前必须参加理论和实践课程。局限性在于结果是专家意见，而不是基于系统评价或荟萃分析。对于前列腺MRI评估作为质量标志的结果陈述没有达成共识。
结论：ESUR和ESUI专家小组在改善前列腺MRI质量的问题上表现出高度一致（74%）。必须检查和报告图像质量。前列腺放射科医师应该参加理论和实践课程,其次是监督教育，并且必须定期进行绩效评估。
结论：•在最近更新的欧洲泌尿外科协会指南和美国泌尿外科协会建议中，多参数MRI在前列腺癌诊断途径中具有公认的前瞻性作用。•在个体水平上的次优图像采集和报告将导致临床医生对技术失去信心并返回到(非MRI)系统活检途径。因此,建立MPMRI采集和报告的质量标准至关重要.•为了确保高质量的前列腺MRI，专家认为必须检查和报告图像质量。前列腺放射科医生必须参加理论和实践课程,其次是监督教育，并且必须定期进行自我和外部绩效评估。
方法：共有44位来自欧洲泌尿生殖道放射学学会（ESUR）和EAU泌尿系统成像部分（ESUI）的前列腺癌成像专家的领先泌尿科医师和泌尿生殖道放射科医师参与了Delphi共识过程。小组成员完成了两轮问卷，共55个项目，分为三个标题：图像质量评估，解释和报告，和放射科医生的经验加上培训中心。在55个问题中，31人被评为9分制协议，24个是多项选择或开放。对于协议项目，小组成员的共识≥70%(评分7~9分),分歧≤15%.对于其他问题，在≥50%的投票中考虑达成共识.
结果：31项协议项目中有24项和11/16其他问题达成共识。协议声明是：（1）应进行图像质量报告并将其实施到临床实践中；（2）对于解释性能，放射科医师应使用具有组织病理学反馈的自我表现测试，将他们的解释与专家阅读进行比较，并使用外部绩效评估；（3）放射科医师在解释前列腺MRI之前必须参加理论和实践课程。局限性在于结果是专家意见，而不是基于系统评价或荟萃分析。对于前列腺MRI评估作为质量标志的结果陈述没有达成共识。
结论：ESUR和ESUI专家小组在改善前列腺MRI质量的问题上表现出高度一致（74%）。必须检查和报告图像质量。前列腺放射科医师应该参加理论和实践课程,其次是监督教育，并且必须定期进行绩效评估。
结论：•在最近更新的欧洲泌尿外科协会指南和美国泌尿外科协会建议中，多参数MRI在前列腺癌诊断途径中具有公认的前瞻性作用。•在个体水平上的次优图像采集和报告将导致临床医生对技术失去信心并返回到(非MRI)系统活检途径。因此,建立MPMRI采集和报告的质量标准至关重要.•为了确保高质量的前列腺MRI，专家认为必须检查和报告图像质量。前列腺放射科医生必须参加理论和实践课程,其次是监督教育，并且必须定期进行自我和外部绩效评估。
