To evaluate interreader agreement on pelvic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpretation among radiologists using a structured reporting tool based on the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P) guidelines.
A structured report for follow-up pelvic mpMRI for advanced prostate cancer (APC) patients was formulated based on MET-RADS-P guidelines. In total, 163 paired pelvic mpMRI examinations were performed from December 2017 to February 2021 on 105 patients with APC. These were retrospectively reviewed by two senior and two junior radiologists for metastatic lesion detection and were categorized by these readers using primary/secondary response assessment categories (RACs), with and without the structured report. Interreader agreement regarding metastasis detection and RAC scores was evaluated with Cohen\'s kappa and weighted Cohen\'s kappa statistics (K), respectively.
The two senior radiologists showed higher agreement with the reference standard for metastasis detection using the structured report (S1: K = 0.83; S2: K = 0.73) compared with the conventional report (S1: K = 0.72; S2: K = 0.61). Junior radiologists showed similar results (J1: 0.66 vs. 0.59; J2: 0.65 vs. 0.57). The overall agreement between the two senior radiologists was excellent for the primary RAC pattern using the structured reports (K = 0.81) and was substantial for secondary RAC categorization (K = 0.75). The interreader agreement of the two junior radiologists was substantial for both primary and secondary RAC values (K = 0.76, 0.68).
Good interreader agreement was found for the follow-up assessment of APC patients between radiologists, where the pelvic mpMRI was reported using MET-RADS-P guidelines. This improvement applied to both metastatic lesion detection and qualitative RAC assessment.

This paper is the fifth in a five-part series on statistical methodology for performance assessment of multi-parametric quantitative imaging biomarkers (mpQIBs) for radiomic analysis. Radiomics is the process of extracting visually imperceptible features from radiographic medical images using data-driven algorithms. We refer to the radiomic features as data-driven imaging markers (DIMs), which are quantitative measures discovered under a data-driven framework from images beyond visual recognition but evident as patterns of disease processes irrespective of whether or not ground truth exists for the true value of the DIM. This paper aims to set guidelines on how to build machine learning models using DIMs in radiomics and to apply and report them appropriately. We provide a list of recommendations, named RANDAM (an abbreviation of \"Radiomic ANalysis and DAta Modeling\"), for analysis, modeling, and reporting in a radiomic study to make machine learning analyses in radiomics more reproducible. RANDAM contains five main components to use in reporting radiomics studies: design, data preparation, data analysis and modeling, reporting, and material availability. Real case studies in lung cancer research are presented along with simulation studies to compare different feature selection methods and several validation strategies.

The increasing precision of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, together with greater experience and standardization in its interpretation, has given this technique an important role in the management of prostate cancer, the most prevalent non-cutaneous cancer in men. This article reviews the concepts in PI-RADS version 2.1 for estimating the probability and zonal location of significant tumors of the prostate, using a practical approach that includes current considerations about the prerequisites for carrying out the test and recommendations for interpreting the findings. It emphasizes benign findings that can lead to confusion and the criteria for evaluating the probability of local spread, which must be included in the structured report.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 allows for a personalized, risk-stratified approach to indicating prostate biopsies (PBx) in order to reduce PBx and concomitant complications in men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). One way to achieve this goal is to implement the risk-stratified pathway (RSP) using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical implementation of the RSP and to examine its impact on the number of PBx and the resulting changes in the PCa detection pattern compared with men undergoing PBx in a detection-focused pathway (DFP) without prior risk assessment.
METHODS: An institutional dataset of 505 consecutive patients with suspected PCa between July 2019 and February 2020 was used.
METHODS: Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were employed to examine differences in the number of PBx and the PCa detection pattern between the DFP (n = 195, 38.6%) and the RSP (n = 310, 61.4%). To minimize differences in risk stratification, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used.
CONCLUSIONS: After implementing the RSP, the overall biopsy rate could be reduced by 11.2% (100% vs 88.8%, p < 0.001. Additionally, compared with the DFP, the number of biopsy cores per patient was reduced in the RSP (14 [interquartile range {IQR} 14-15] vs 14 [IQR 6-14], p < 0.001) and the detection of clinically significant PCa was increased (44.3% vs 57.7%, p = 0.038). Overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease was decreased in the RSP (22.8% vs 12.6%, p = 0.039).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the RSP in clinical practice reduced the number of PBx and brought forth a shift in the PCa detection pattern toward clinically significant disease, while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease.
RESULTS: In this study, we examined the impact of risk stratification on the number of prostate biopsies (PBx) and the consecutive detection pattern in men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). We found that the risk-stratified pathway reduced the number of PBx while simultaneously shifting the PCa detection pattern toward clinically significant PCa.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To develop technical guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging aimed at characterising renal masses (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, mpMRI) and at imaging the bladder and upper urinary tract (magnetic resonance urography, MRU).
METHODS: The French Society of Genitourinary Imaging organised a Delphi consensus conference with a two-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face meeting. Two separate questionnaires were issued for renal mpMRI and for MRU. Consensus was strictly defined using a priori criteria.
RESULTS: Forty-two expert uroradiologists completed both survey rounds with no attrition between the rounds. Fifty-six of 84 (67%) statements of the mpMRI questionnaire and 44/71 (62%) statements of the MRU questionnaire reached final consensus. For mpMRI, there was consensus that no injection of furosemide was needed and that the imaging protocol should include T2-weighted imaging, dual chemical shift imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (use of multiple b-values; maximal b-value, 1000 s/mm2) and fat-saturated single-bolus multiphase (unenhanced, corticomedullary, nephrographic) contrast-enhanced imaging; late imaging (more than 10 min after injection) was judged optional. For MRU, the patients should void their bladder before the examination. The protocol must include T2-weighted imaging, anatomical fast T1/T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (use of multiple b-values; maximal b-value, 1000 s/mm2) and fat-saturated single-bolus multiphase (unenhanced, corticomedullary, nephrographic, excretory) contrast-enhanced imaging. An intravenous injection of furosemide is mandatory before the injection of contrast medium. Heavily T2-weighted cholangiopancreatography-like imaging was judged optional.
CONCLUSIONS: This expert-based consensus conference provides recommendations to standardise magnetic resonance imaging of kidneys, ureter and bladder.
CONCLUSIONS: • Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) aims at characterising renal masses; magnetic resonance urography (MRU) aims at imaging the urinary bladder and the collecting systems. • For mpMRI, no injection of furosemide is needed. • For MRU, an intravenous injection of furosemide is mandatory before the injection of contrast medium; heavily T2-weighted cholangiopancreatography-like imaging is optional.

OBJECTIVE: In our center, until 2018, MRI-targeted biopsy was underused. Since January 2018, we systematically performed MRI-targeted biopsy for suspicious PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions in accordance to the recent guidelines. We hypothesized that the implementation of systematic prebiopsy MRI would increase the detection rate (DR) of prostate cancer (PCa) without increasing DR of clinically insignificant PCa (insignPCa).
METHODS: A retrospective study including consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa in our center between January 2017 and December 2018 was conducted. Combined biopsies were performed for suspicious MRI and systematic biopsies for nonsuspicious MRI. The primary outcome was to compare the DR of PCa per year. Secondary outcomes included DRs of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignPCa between both years and outcomes of targeted vs systematic biopsies.
RESULTS: A total of 306 men (152 in 2017 and 154 in 2018) were included. Respectively, median (IQR) age was 69 (63-75) vs 70 (65-76) years (p = 0.29) and median (IQR) PSA density was 0.17 (0.13-0.28) vs 0.17 (0.11-0.26) (p = 0.24). There was a significant increase in prebiopsy MRI performed (120 [78.9%] vs 143 [92.8%]; p < 0.001) in 2018. DRs of PCa (94 [61.8%] vs 112 [72.7%]; p = 0.04) and csPCa (76 [50%] vs 95 [61.6%]; p = 0.04) increased in 2018, while the insignPCa DR was stable (p = 0.13). The DR of PCa was 58.3%, 65% and 71.2%, respectively, in targeted, systematic and combined biopsies (p = 0.02). In case of nonsuspicious MRI, the prevalence of csPCA was 12.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: Introducing systematical MRI-targeted biopsy in our clinical setting increased the PCa DR without overdiagnosing insignPCa. Implementation of prebiopsy MRI does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy, and nonsuspicious MRI should not obviate the need for prostate biopsy when otherwise clinically indicated.

Although the clinical use of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasing, the adherence to parameters for mpMRI, which had been described in the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) for an optimum image acquisition is unknown. In this paper, we aimed to determine the compliance with the minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI defined by PI-RADS v2 in tertiary care centers in Turkey.
We sent a survey to all radiology departments of tertiary referral hospitals in Turkey (n=120) to evaluate their adherence to PI-RADS v2 technical specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher exact, ANOVA, and the Student t tests. The cutoff values for image acquisition times were also determined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
One hundred and eleven clinics responded to our survey (response rate, 92.5%). Prostate MRI was reported to be performed in 61 centers, of which 26 (42.6%) used 3 T (Tesla) scanner while 35 (57.4%) used 1.5 T. The adherence to slice thickness, in-plane phase and frequency resolutions on T2-weighted imaging were 68.9%, 41%, and 9.8%, respectively. The adherence to the same parameters on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were higher compared with T2-weighted imaging (85.2%, 62.3%, and 78.7%, respectively). In comparative analysis, the adherence to slice thickness, field of view (FOV) and in-plane phase resolution on T2-weighted imaging were higher for 3 T compared with 1.5 T scanners (P = 0.004, P = 0.041, and P = 0.001, respectively). T2-weighted imaging acquisition time was significantly longer for the centers that adhered to FOV (P = 0.034) and in-plane T2-weighted imaging phase resolution (P = 0.028). The DWI scan time was significantly longer when they adhered to DWI-FOV (P = 0.014) and b value ≥1400 s/mm2 (P = 0.008). The calculated cutoff of scan times were 220 s in T2-weighted imaging and 312 s in DWI to ensure the compliance with voxel sizes and b value criteria.
The tertiary referral centers in Turkey did not meet majority of the technical specifications of PI-RADS v2 during prostate MRI acquisition. Awareness to the minimum acceptable technical parameters of mpMRI should be increased to potentially improve the quality of prostate cancer imaging.

It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy.
To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa.
The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer.
A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1-37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0-92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7-92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r=-0.64, p<0.0001) and csPCa (r=-0.75, p=0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77-99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56-79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%.
The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative.
This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer.