ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training
Ahmed, Hashim U.
Barentsz, Jelle O.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
MetadataShow full item record
de Rooij, M., Israël, B., Tummers, M., Ahmed, H. U., Barrett, T., Giganti, F., Hamm, B., et al. (2020). ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. European Radiology, 30 (10), 5404-5416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
Funder: Radboud University Medical Center
Abstract: 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.
Urogenital, Consensus, Diagnosis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging, Prostatic neoplasms
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/309971