How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 522-535

  Puech, Philippe ^a,b,c   Randazzo, Marco ^d   Ouzzane, Adil ^a,b,c   Gaillard, Vianney ^a,b   Rastinehad, Ardeshir ^e   Lemaitre, Laurent ^a,b   Villers, Arnauld ^a,b,c  

^a LILLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b U1189 ONCO THAI Image Assisted Laser Therapy for Oncology   (France)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Education; Guidelines; Interpretation; MRI; Prostate; Reporting

Indexed keywords

CANCER STAGING; CERTIFICATION; DOUBLE READING; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY; MICROCOMPUTER; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; RADIOLOGIST; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; UROLOGIST; WEB BROWSER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EDUCATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOLOGY; STANDARDS; UROLOGY;

CERTIFICATION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UROLOGY;

EID: 84943190657     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000217     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757.
2. 2015ACR ISCoEa. PI-RADS v2. Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System: Version 2: European Society of UroRadiology (ESUR); 2014. http:// www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/user-upload/-v2-20141223.pdf. [Accessed 25 July 2015]
3. Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, et al. Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:995-1002.
4. Vache T, Bratan F, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2014; 272:446-455.
5. Puech P, Villers A, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L. Prostate cancer: diagnosis, parametric imaging and standardized report. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014; 95:743-752.
6. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59:477-494.
7. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 37:48-58.
8. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013; 64:544-552.
9. Puech P, Ouzzane A, Gaillard V, et al. Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014:819360.
10. Mueller-Lisse U, Mueller-Lisse U, Scheidler J, et al. Reproducibility of image interpretation in MRI of the prostate: application of the sextant framework by two different radiologists. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:1826-1833.
11. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Clinical applications of multiparametric MRI within the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Urol Oncol 2013; 31:281-284.
12. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 142818.
13. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, et al. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67:1112-1121.
14. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, et al. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201:W612-W618.
15. Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015; 275:458-468.
16. Grey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015; 115:728-735.
17. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013; 269:482-492.
18. Betrouni N, Makni N, Lakroum S, et al. Computer-aided analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images: an unsupervised fusion-based approach. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2015.
19. Lemaitre G, Marti R, Freixenet J, et al. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis for prostate cancer based on mono and multiparametric MRI: a review. Comput Biol Med 2015; 60:8-31.
20. Wang S, Burtt K, Turkbey B, et al. Computer aided-diagnosis of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: a technical review of current research. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014:789561.
21. Zhao K, Wang C, Hu J, et al. Prostate cancer identification: quantitative analysis of T2-weighted MR images based on a back propagation artificial neural network model. Sci China Life Sci 2015; 58:666-673.
22. Regge D, Halligan S. CAD: how it works, how to use it, performance. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:1171-1176.
23. Niaf E, Rouviere O, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57:3833-3851.
24. Puech P, Betrouni N, Makni N, et al. Computer-assisted diagnosis of prostate cancer using DCE-MRI data: design, implementation and preliminary results. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2009; 4:1-10.
25. Rosenkrantz AB, Geppert C, Grimm R, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate with high spatiotemporal resolution using compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and continuous golden-angle radial sampling: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41:1365-1373.
26. Rakow-Penner RA, White NS, Parsons JK, et al. Novel technique for characterizing prostate cancer utilizing MRI restriction spectrum imaging: proof of principle and initial clinical experience with extraprostatic extension. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18:81-85.
27. Dikaios N, Alkalbani J, Sidhu HS, et al. Logistic regression model for diagnosis of transition zone prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI. Eur Radiol 2015; 25:523-532.
28. Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Sosa R, et al. Value of a standardized lexicon for reporting levels of diagnostic certainty in prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203:W651-W657.
29. Westphalen AC, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS): reflections on early experience with a standardized interpretation scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202:121-123.
30. Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franiel T. PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Rofo 2013; 185:253-261.
31. Kirkham AP, Haslam P, Keanie JY, et al. Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol 2013; 68:1016-1023.
32. Quentin M, Blondin D, Klasen J, et al. Evaluation of a structured report of functional prostate magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer or under active surveillance. Urol Int 2012; 89:25-29.
33. Silveira PC, Dunne R, Sainani NI, et al. Impact of an information technology-enabled initiative on the quality of prostate multiparametric MRI reports. Acad Radiol 2015; 22:827-833.
34. Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009; 64:386-394; 395-386.
35. Kahn CE Jr, Heilbrun ME, Applegate KE. From guidelines to practice: how reporting templates promote the use of radiology practice guidelines. J Am College Radiol 2013; 10:268-273.
36. El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, et al. PROMIS - Prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2015; 42:26-40.
37. Puech P. Prostate MRI structured report wizard. http://www.pcih.fr/mpmri. [Accessed 25 July 2015]
38. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108:E171-E178.
39. Barentsz J, Villers A, Schouten M. ESUR prostate MR guidelines. Author reply. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:2322-2323.
40. Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Huisman HJ. Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 2015; doi 10.1007/s00330-015-3743-y. [Epub ahead of print]
41. Mata C, Walker PM, Oliver A, et al. ProstateAnalyzer: web-based medical application for the management of prostate cancer using multiparametric MR imaging. Inform Health Soc Care 2015; 1-21.
42. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005; 237:541-549.
43. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, et al. Prostate cancer: detection of extra-capsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 2004; 232:140-146.
44. Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS Jr, Porter CR, et al. Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 2007; 14:3429-3434.
45. Harris RD, Schned AR, Heaney JA. Staging of prostate cancer with endo-rectal MR imaging: lessons from a learning curve. Radiographics 1995; 15:813-829.
46. Muller BG, Futterer JJ, Gupta RT, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int 2014; 113:218-227.
47. Trimboli RM, Verardi N, Cartia F, et al. Breast cancer detection using double reading of unenhanced MRI including T1-weighted, T2-weighted STIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging: a proof of concept study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203:674-681.
48. Klompenhouwer EG, Duijm LE, Voogd AC, et al. Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at nonblinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:1097-1104.
49. Klompenhouwer EG, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, et al. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than nonblinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51:391-399.
50. Klompenhouwer EG, Weber RJ, Voogd AC, et al. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading. Breast 2015; doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.06.004. [Epub ahead of print]
51. Popescu BA, Andrade MJ, Badano LP, et al. European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for training, competence, and quality improvement in echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009; 10:893-905.
52. Ertl-Wagner B. European curriculum for further education in radiology. Der Radiologe 2014; 54:1106; 1107-1110.
53. Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdominal Imaging 2015; 40:134-142.
54. Howard SA, Krajewski KM, Weissman BN, et al. Cancer imaging training in the 21st century: anoverview ofwhere we are, and where we need tobe. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12:714-720.