Decreased prostate MRI cancer detection rate due to moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis.
Artifacts
Cancer screening
Hip prosthesis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Oct 2023
27 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
18
07
2023
accepted:
24
08
2023
revised:
15
08
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2023
medline:
27
10
2023
entrez:
27
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the impact of susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis on cancer detection rate (CDR) in prostate MRI. This three-center retrospective study included prostate MRI studies for patients without known prostate cancer between 2017 and 2021. Exams with hip prosthesis were searched on MRI reports. The degree of susceptibility artifact on diffusion-weighted images was retrospectively categorized into mild, moderate, and severe (> 66%, 33-66%, and < 33% of the prostate volume are evaluable) by blind reviewers. CDR was defined as the number of exams with Gleason score ≥7 detected by MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) divided by the total number of exams. For each artifact grade, control exams without hip prosthesis were matched (1:6 match), and CDR was compared. The degree of CDR reduction was evaluated with ratio, and influential factors were evaluated by expanding the equation. Hip arthroplasty was present in 548 (4.8%) of the 11,319 MRI exams. CDR of the cases and matched control exams for each artifact grade were as follows: mild (n = 238), 0.27 vs 0.25, CDR ratio = 1.09 [95% CI: 0.87-1.37]; moderate (n = 143), 0.18 vs 0.27, CDR ratio = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.46-0.96]; severe (n = 167), 0.22 vs 0.28, CDR ratio = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.59-1.08]. When moderate and severe artifact grades were combined, CDR ratio was 0.74 [95% CI: 0.58-0.93]. CDR reduction was mostly attributed to the increased frequency of PI-RADS 1-2. With moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis, CDR was decreased to 74% compared to the matched control. Moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis may cause a non-negligible CDR reduction in prostate MRI. Expanding indications for systematic prostate biopsy may be considered when PI-RADS 1-2 was assigned. • We proposed cancer detection rate as a diagnostic performance metric in prostate MRI. • With moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts secondary to hip arthroplasty, cancer detection rate decreased to 74% compared to the matched control. • Expanding indications for systematic prostate biopsy may be considered when PI-RADS 1-2 is assigned.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37889268
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10345-4
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-10345-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
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
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617
pubmed: 31642740
Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS et al (2015) Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1386–1397
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141
pubmed: 26333733
Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr (2020) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 35:S79–S85
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
pubmed: 32151524
pmcid: 7239745
Boschheidgen M, Ullrich T, Blondin D et al (2021) Comparison and prediction of artefact severity due to total hip replacement in 1.5 T versus 3 T MRI of the prostate. Eur J Radiol 144:109949
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109949
pubmed: 34537450
American College of Radiology (2019) PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System. Version 2.1. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf?la=en . Accessed June 1, 2023
Panfili E, Pierdicca L, Salvolini L et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artefacts in hip prostheses: a comparison of different prosthetic compositions. Radiol Med 119:113–120
doi: 10.1007/s11547-013-0315-6
pubmed: 24297575
Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G et al (2013) Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol 20:1041–1047
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.04.005
pubmed: 23830610
pmcid: 4721569
Czarniecki M, Caglic I, Grist JT et al (2018) Role of PROPELLER-DWI of the prostate in reducing distortion and artefact from total hip replacement metalwork. Eur J Radiol 102:213–219
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.03.021
pubmed: 29685538
Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2018) Use of reduced field-of-view acquisition to improve prostate cancer visualization on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the presence of hip implants: report of 2 cases. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 47:125–127
doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.03.004
pubmed: 28478960
Knaapila J, Jambor I, Ettala O et al (2021) Negative predictive value of biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in excluding significant prostate cancer: a pooled data analysis based on clinical data from four prospective, Registered Studies. Eur Urol Focus 7:522–531
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.04.007
pubmed: 32418878
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V et al (2018) Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer (BIDOC) Study. JAMA Netw Open 1:e180219
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219
pubmed: 30646066
pmcid: 6324414
Iacus SM, King G, Porro G (2012) Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit Anal 20:1–24
doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr013
Crewson PE (2005) Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1391–1397
doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.5.01841391
pubmed: 15855085
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46:399–424
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
pubmed: 21818162
pmcid: 3144483
Karanasios E, Caglic I, Zawaideh JP, Barrett T (2022) Prostate MRI quality: clinical impact of the PI-QUAL score in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up. Br J Radiol 95:20211372
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20211372
pubmed: 35179971
Brembilla G, Lavalle S, Parry T et al (2023) Impact of prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) score on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy. Eur J Radiol 164:110849
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110849
pubmed: 37141845
Pötsch N, Rainer E, Clauser P et al (2022) Impact of PI-QUAL on PI-RADS and cancer yield in an MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy population. Eur J Radiol 154:110431
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110431
pubmed: 35803101
Salka BR, Shankar PR, Troost JP et al (2022) Effect of prostate MRI interpretation experience on PPV using PI-RADS version 2: a 6-year assessment among eight fellowship-trained radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 219:453–460
doi: 10.2214/AJR.22.27421
pubmed: 35319914
pmcid: 10170485
Davenport MS, Downs E, George AK et al (2021) Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System Version 2 as a radiology performance metric: an analysis of 18 abdominal radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1069–1076
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.02.032
pubmed: 33848507
Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM et al (2020) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology 296:76–84
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020190646
pubmed: 32315265
Shankar PR, Davenport MS, Helvie MA (2020) Prostate MRI and quality: lessons learned from breast imaging rad-path correlation. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:4028–4030
doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02343-2
pubmed: 31820045
Destouet JM, Bassett LW, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) The ACR’s Mammography Accreditation Program: ten years of experience since MQSA. J Am Coll Radiol 2:585–594
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.12.005
pubmed: 17411883
Sprague BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern diagnostic digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283:59–69
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161519
pubmed: 28244803
D’Orsi C, Bassett L, Feig S, Others (2013) ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, Va. American College of Radiology
Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA et al (2006) Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241:55–66
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2411051504
pubmed: 16990671
Schneider AF, Stocker D, Hötker AM et al (2019) Comparison of PSA-density of the transition zone and whole gland for risk stratification of men with suspected prostate cancer: a retrospective MRI-cohort study. Eur J Radiol 120:108660
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108660
pubmed: 31546123
Hu CY, Yoon T-R (2018) Recent updates for biomaterials used in total hip arthroplasty. Biomater Res 22:33
doi: 10.1186/s40824-018-0144-8
pubmed: 30534414
pmcid: 6280401
Tsikandylakis G, Overgaard S, Zagra L, Kärrholm J (2020) Global diversity in bearings in primary THA. EFORT Open Rev 5:763–775
doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200002
pubmed: 33204520
pmcid: 7608521
Koff MF, Shah P, Koch KM, Potter HG (2013) Quantifying image distortion of orthopedic materials in magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:610–618
doi: 10.1002/jmri.23991
pubmed: 23292702
Matsuura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K et al (2005) Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields. Neurol Med Chir 45:395–399
doi: 10.2176/nmc.45.395
Khodarahmi I, Isaac A, Fishman EK et al (2019) Metal about the hip and artifact reduction techniques: from basic concepts to advanced imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 23:e68–e81
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1687898
pubmed: 31163511
Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M et al (2020) Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 3:615–619
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007
pubmed: 32646850
Giganti F, Kirkham A, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2021) Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists. Insights Imaging 12:59
doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00996-6
pubmed: 33932167
pmcid: 8088425
De Rooij M, Barentsz JO (2022) PI-QUAL v.1: the first step towards good-quality prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 32:876–878
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08399-3
pubmed: 34842957
Brembilla G, Lavalle S, Parry T et al (2023) Impact of prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) score on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy. Eur J Radiol 164:110849
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110849
pubmed: 37141845