Are Urologists Ready for Interpretation of Multiparametric MRI Findings? A Prospective Multicentric Evaluation.
diagnosis
mpMRI
prostate cancer
training
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2022
01 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
18
09
2022
revised:
26
10
2022
accepted:
27
10
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
12
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Aim: To assess urologists’ proficiency in the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Materials and Methods: Twelve mpMRIs were shown to 73 urologists from seven Italian institutions. Responders were asked to identify the site of the suspicious nodule (SN) but not to assign a PIRADS score. We set an a priori cut-off of 75% correct identification of SN as a threshold for proficiency in mpMRI reading. Data were analyzed according to urologists’ hierarchy (UH; resident vs. consultant) and previous experience in fusion prostate biopsies (E-fPB, defined as <125 vs. ≥125). Additionally, we tested for differences between non-proficient vs. proficient mpMRI readers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVLRA) tested potential predictors of proficiency in mpMRI reading. Results: The median (IQR) number of correct identifications was 8 (6−8). Anterior nodules (number 3, 4 and 6) represented the most likely prone to misinterpretation. Overall, 34 (47%) participants achieved the 75% cut-off. When comparing consultants vs. residents, we found no differences in terms of E-fPB (p = 0.9) or in correct identification rates (p = 0.6). We recorded higher identification rates in urologists with E-fBP vs. their no E-fBP counterparts (75% vs. 67%, p = 0.004). At MVLRA, only E- fPB reached the status of independent predictor of proficiency in mpMRI reading (OR: 3.4, 95% CI 1.2−9.9, p = 0.02) after adjusting for UH and type of institution. Conclusions: Despite urologists becoming more familiar with interpretation of mpMRI, their results are still far from proficient. E-fPB enhances the proficiency in mpMRI interpretation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36359499
pii: diagnostics12112656
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112656
pmc: PMC9689928
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;51(2):593-602
pubmed: 31369194
Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):203-204
pubmed: 30327275
Urology. 2019 Sep;131:40-45
pubmed: 31150691
Eur Radiol. 2022 Feb;32(2):879-889
pubmed: 34327583
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;51(2):605-606
pubmed: 31667918
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 May;216(5):1247-1256
pubmed: 32755220
Surg Neurol Int. 2015 Jun 25;6(Suppl 10):S313-7
pubmed: 26167368
Scand J Urol. 2019 Oct;53(5):304-311
pubmed: 31661357
Abdom Imaging. 2012 Aug;37(4):664-74
pubmed: 21993567
Eur Radiol. 2019 Sep;29(9):4843-4850
pubmed: 30806804
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):469-480
pubmed: 31767492
Urology. 2018 Jan;111:136-138
pubmed: 28823635
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Jul;217(1):141-151
pubmed: 32903060
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):481-490
pubmed: 31791623
Eur Radiol. 2010 Apr;20(4):995-1002
pubmed: 19921205
Eur Urol. 2021 Jan;79(1):8-10
pubmed: 33143947
Indian J Urol. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):168-9
pubmed: 26166958
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 Mar - Apr;48(2):132-141
pubmed: 29428182
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):546-551
pubmed: 30842585
Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):2082-2090
pubmed: 31844959
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):457-468
pubmed: 31582290
BJU Int. 2019 Nov;124(5):730-737
pubmed: 30740876
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 May 28;11(6):
pubmed: 34071215