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

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. Consecutive patients with 3 T mpMRI and subsequent combined MRI/ultraso...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical radiology 2024-03, Vol.79 (3), p.e468-e474
Hauptverfasser: Ziayee, F., Schimmöller, L., Boschheidgen, M., Kasprowski, L., Al-Monajjed, R., Quentin, M., Radtke, J.P., Albers, P., Antoch, G., Ullrich, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e474
container_issue 3
container_start_page e468
container_title Clinical radiology
container_volume 79
creator Ziayee, F.
Schimmöller, L.
Boschheidgen, M.
Kasprowski, L.
Al-Monajjed, R.
Quentin, M.
Radtke, J.P.
Albers, P.
Antoch, G.
Ullrich, T.
description 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. 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; 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. Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 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). 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. •Greater experience improved sensitivity and negative predictive values for csPC detection in bpMRI and mpMRI.•Less experienced readers missed over 20% csPC with bpMRI or mpMRI and induced 25% more negative biopsies without DCE.•For experts, accuracy for csPC detection of bpMRI was comparable to mpMRI but 9% more csPC (ISUP 2) were detected with DCE.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.crad.2023.11.026
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2911844628</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009926023005792</els_id><sourcerecordid>2911844628</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-7c0535c0861bee37778ea86dc70152af53e1bbcdbfd1a02146fa1b4ab60809ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFP2zAYhi3ERAvbH-CAfIRDMn9O4iQSFyiFITFNmjZpN8uxvxRXrVNsF603fvocysZtJ_uTnve1v4eQU2A5MBCfl7n2yuSc8SIHyBkXB2QKhagyzttfh2TKGGuzlgs2IcchLMex5OURmRQNNFVVt1Pyco0Oexvp0FOzc2ptNdWDi16FmKF7VE6joec3s_kFtWu1sG5B-8HTjR9CVBGpHglPDUbU0Q4u3TbozMilwaMy6APF3xv0FhNKrXsPf_1-_5F86NUq4Ke384T8vJ3_mH3JHr7d3c-uHjJdVCJmtWZVUWnWCOgQi7quG1SNMLpmUHHVVwVC12nT9QYU41CKXkFXqk6whrXKFCfkfN-bHn_aYohybYPG1Uo5HLZB8hagKUvBm4TyParTP4PHXm582t3vJDA5mpdLOZqXo3kJIJP5FDp76992azT_In9VJ-ByD2Da8tmil0G_GjHWJ3XSDPZ__X8AvBaWSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2911844628</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ziayee, F. ; Schimmöller, L. ; Boschheidgen, M. ; Kasprowski, L. ; Al-Monajjed, R. ; Quentin, M. ; Radtke, J.P. ; Albers, P. ; Antoch, G. ; Ullrich, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ziayee, F. ; Schimmöller, L. ; Boschheidgen, M. ; Kasprowski, L. ; Al-Monajjed, R. ; Quentin, M. ; Radtke, J.P. ; Albers, P. ; Antoch, G. ; Ullrich, T.</creatorcontrib><description>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. 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; &lt;500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; &gt;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. Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 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). 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. •Greater experience improved sensitivity and negative predictive values for csPC detection in bpMRI and mpMRI.•Less experienced readers missed over 20% csPC with bpMRI or mpMRI and induced 25% more negative biopsies without DCE.•For experts, accuracy for csPC detection of bpMRI was comparable to mpMRI but 9% more csPC (ISUP 2) were detected with DCE.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9260</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2023.11.026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38185579</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biopsy ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Prostate - diagnostic imaging ; Prostate - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Clinical radiology, 2024-03, Vol.79 (3), p.e468-e474</ispartof><rights>2023</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-7c0535c0861bee37778ea86dc70152af53e1bbcdbfd1a02146fa1b4ab60809ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-7c0535c0861bee37778ea86dc70152af53e1bbcdbfd1a02146fa1b4ab60809ad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009926023005792$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38185579$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ziayee, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schimmöller, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boschheidgen, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasprowski, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Monajjed, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quentin, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radtke, J.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albers, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antoch, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullrich, T.</creatorcontrib><title>Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI</title><title>Clinical radiology</title><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><description>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. 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; &lt;500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; &gt;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. Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 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). 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. •Greater experience improved sensitivity and negative predictive values for csPC detection in bpMRI and mpMRI.•Less experienced readers missed over 20% csPC with bpMRI or mpMRI and induced 25% more negative biopsies without DCE.•For experts, accuracy for csPC detection of bpMRI was comparable to mpMRI but 9% more csPC (ISUP 2) were detected with DCE.</description><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostate - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFP2zAYhi3ERAvbH-CAfIRDMn9O4iQSFyiFITFNmjZpN8uxvxRXrVNsF603fvocysZtJ_uTnve1v4eQU2A5MBCfl7n2yuSc8SIHyBkXB2QKhagyzttfh2TKGGuzlgs2IcchLMex5OURmRQNNFVVt1Pyco0Oexvp0FOzc2ptNdWDi16FmKF7VE6joec3s_kFtWu1sG5B-8HTjR9CVBGpHglPDUbU0Q4u3TbozMilwaMy6APF3xv0FhNKrXsPf_1-_5F86NUq4Ke384T8vJ3_mH3JHr7d3c-uHjJdVCJmtWZVUWnWCOgQi7quG1SNMLpmUHHVVwVC12nT9QYU41CKXkFXqk6whrXKFCfkfN-bHn_aYohybYPG1Uo5HLZB8hagKUvBm4TyParTP4PHXm582t3vJDA5mpdLOZqXo3kJIJP5FDp76992azT_In9VJ-ByD2Da8tmil0G_GjHWJ3XSDPZ__X8AvBaWSQ</recordid><startdate>202403</startdate><enddate>202403</enddate><creator>Ziayee, F.</creator><creator>Schimmöller, L.</creator><creator>Boschheidgen, M.</creator><creator>Kasprowski, L.</creator><creator>Al-Monajjed, R.</creator><creator>Quentin, M.</creator><creator>Radtke, J.P.</creator><creator>Albers, P.</creator><creator>Antoch, G.</creator><creator>Ullrich, T.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202403</creationdate><title>Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI</title><author>Ziayee, F. ; Schimmöller, L. ; Boschheidgen, M. ; Kasprowski, L. ; Al-Monajjed, R. ; Quentin, M. ; Radtke, J.P. ; Albers, P. ; Antoch, G. ; Ullrich, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-7c0535c0861bee37778ea86dc70152af53e1bbcdbfd1a02146fa1b4ab60809ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostate - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ziayee, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schimmöller, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boschheidgen, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasprowski, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Monajjed, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quentin, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radtke, J.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albers, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antoch, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullrich, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ziayee, F.</au><au>Schimmöller, L.</au><au>Boschheidgen, M.</au><au>Kasprowski, L.</au><au>Al-Monajjed, R.</au><au>Quentin, M.</au><au>Radtke, J.P.</au><au>Albers, P.</au><au>Antoch, G.</au><au>Ullrich, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI</atitle><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><date>2024-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>79</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e468</spage><epage>e474</epage><pages>e468-e474</pages><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><eissn>1365-229X</eissn><abstract>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. 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; &lt;500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; &gt;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. Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 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). 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. •Greater experience improved sensitivity and negative predictive values for csPC detection in bpMRI and mpMRI.•Less experienced readers missed over 20% csPC with bpMRI or mpMRI and induced 25% more negative biopsies without DCE.•For experts, accuracy for csPC detection of bpMRI was comparable to mpMRI but 9% more csPC (ISUP 2) were detected with DCE.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>38185579</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.crad.2023.11.026</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-9260
ispartof Clinical radiology, 2024-03, Vol.79 (3), p.e468-e474
issn 0009-9260
1365-229X
1365-229X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2911844628
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Biopsy
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Prostate - diagnostic imaging
Prostate - pathology
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology
Retrospective Studies
title Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T02%3A40%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Benefit%20of%20dynamic%20contrast-enhanced%20(DCE)%20imaging%20for%20prostate%20cancer%20detection%20depending%20on%20readers%20experience%20in%20prostate%20MRI&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20radiology&rft.au=Ziayee,%20F.&rft.date=2024-03&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e468&rft.epage=e474&rft.pages=e468-e474&rft.issn=0009-9260&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.crad.2023.11.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2911844628%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2911844628&rft_id=info:pmid/38185579&rft_els_id=S0009926023005792&rfr_iscdi=true