Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI

被引:2
|
作者
Ziayee, F. [1 ]
Schimmoeuroller, L. [1 ,2 ]
Boschheidgen, M. [1 ]
Kasprowski, L. [1 ]
Al-Monajjed, R. [3 ]
Quentin, M. [1 ]
Radtke, J. P. [3 ]
Albers, P. [3 ]
Antoch, G. [1 ]
Ullrich, T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, Med Fac, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Univ Bochum, Univ Hosp Ruhr, Marien Hosp Herne, Dept Diagnost, Herne, Germany
[3] Univ Dusseldorf, Med Fac, Dept Urol, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
关键词
MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; GADOLINIUM DEPOSITION; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2023.11.026
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
AIM To investigate the relevance of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging (DCE) within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) depending on reader experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive patients with 3 T mpMRI and subsequent combined MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted and systematic biopsy from January to September 2019 were included. All mpMRI examinations were read separately by two less experienced (R1; <500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; >5,000 prostate MRI) in consensus and blinded re-read as biparametric MRI (bpMRI). The primary endpoint was the performance comparison of mpMRI versus bpMRI of R1 and R2. RESULTS Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (kappa = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (kappa = 0.508). R1 assessed 11 csPC with PI-RADS <= 3 (20.8%) on mpMRI and 12 (22.6%) on bpMRI (R2: 1 [1.9%] and 6 [11.3%], respectively). Sensitivity for csPC of mpMRI was 79.3% (NPV 79.3%) for R1 and 98.1% (NPV 97.5%) for R2 (bpMRI: 77.4% [NVP 75.5%] and 86.8% [NPV 84.4%], respectively). Specificity of mpMRI for csPC was 59.2% for R1 and 54.9% for R2 (bpMRI: 52.1% and 53.5%, respectively). Overall accuracy of mpMRI was 79.8% for R1 compared to bpMRI 66.9% (p=0.017; R2: 87.1% and 81.5%; p=0.230). CONCLUSION Prostate MRI benefits from reader experience. Less experienced readers missed a relevant proportion of csPC with mpMRI and even more with bpMRI. The overall performance of expert readers was comparable for mpMRI and bpMRI but DCE enabled detection of some further ISUP 2 PC.
引用
收藏
页码:e468 / e474
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness
    Baur, Alexander D. J.
    Schwabe, Julia
    Rogasch, Julian
    Maxeiner, Andreas
    Penzkofer, Tobias
    Stephan, Carsten
    Rudl, Marc
    Hamm, Bernd
    Jung, Ernst-Michael
    Fischer, Thom
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (05) : 1949 - 1960
  • [2] Modified MR dispersion imaging in prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
    Sung, Kyunghyun
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2019, 50 (04) : 1307 - 1317
  • [3] Detection of locally radio-recurrent prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI: Can dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging be omitted?
    Alonzo, F.
    Melodelima, C.
    Bratan, F.
    Vitry, T.
    Crouzet, S.
    Gelet, A.
    Rouviere, O.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2016, 97 (04) : 433 - 441
  • [4] Reply to "Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Detection and Volume Estimation: Is Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Really Reliable?"
    Chatterjee, Aritrick
    Sun, Chongpeng
    Oto, Aytekin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (06) : W290 - W290
  • [5] Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Detection and Volume Estimation: Is Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Really Reliable?
    Scialpi, Michele
    Scialpi, Pietro
    Martorana, Eugenio
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (06) : W289 - W289
  • [6] Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging in Localizing Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy: Limited Added Value for Readers of Varying Level of Experience
    Luzurier, Anna
    De Guibert, Paul-Hugo Jouve
    Allera, Alexandre
    Feldman, Sarah F.
    Conort, Pierre
    Simon, Jean Marc
    Mozer, Pierre
    Comperat, Eva
    Boudghene, Franck
    Servois, Vincent
    Lucidarme, Olivier
    Granger, Benjamin
    Renard-Penna, Raphaele
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2018, 48 (04) : 1012 - 1023
  • [7] Impact of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in 1.5 T versus 3 T MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection
    Ziayee, F.
    Schimmoeller, L.
    Blondin, D.
    Boschheidgen, M.
    Wilms, LM.
    Vach, M.
    Arsov, C.
    Albers, P.
    Antoch, G.
    Ullrich, T.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 156
  • [8] Quantitative Analysis of Prostate MRI: Correlation between Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Parameters
    Choi, Moon-Hyung
    Lee, Young-Joon
    Han, Dongyeob
    Kim, Dong-Hyun
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2023, 30 (12) : 10299 - 10310
  • [9] Variability induced by the MR imager in dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging of the prostate
    Brunelle, S.
    Zemmour, C.
    Bratan, F.
    Mege-Lechevallier, F.
    Ruffion, A.
    Colombel, M.
    Crouzet, S.
    Sarran, A.
    Rouviere, O.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2018, 99 (04) : 255 - 264
  • [10] Deep-learning prostate cancer detection and segmentation on biparametric versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging
    Matsuoka, Yoh
    Ueno, Yoshihiko
    Uehara, Sho
    Tanaka, Hiroshi
    Kobayashi, Masaki
    Tanaka, Hajime
    Yoshida, Soichiro
    Yokoyama, Minato
    Kumazawa, Itsuo
    Fujii, Yasuhisa
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 30 (12) : 1103 - 1111