Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct;30(10):5404-5416.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z. Epub 2020 May 19.

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

Maarten de Rooij  1 , Bas Israël  2   3 , Marcia Tummers  4 , Hashim U Ahmed  5   6 , Tristan Barrett  7 , Francesco Giganti  8   9 , Bernd Hamm  10 , Vibeke Løgager  11 , Anwar Padhani  12 , Valeria Panebianco  13 , Philippe Puech  14 , Jonathan Richenberg  15 , Olivier Rouvière  16   17 , Georg Salomon  18 , Ivo Schoots  19   20 , Jeroen Veltman  21 , Geert Villeirs  22 , Jochen Walz  23 , Jelle O Barentsz  2
Affiliations

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

Maarten de Rooij et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct.

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.

Keywords: Consensus; Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Details of the stages of the Delphi process (flow chart)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2019) EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines 2019 Edition. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
    1. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S et al (2020) Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 203:706–712 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72:250–266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol. 2018;74:48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77:78–94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types