Current Utilization and Acceptance of Multiparametric MRI in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. A Regional Survey

Abstract

Purpose To assess the current regional acceptance, valuation, and clinical role of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) in prostate cancer diagnostics by patients and physicians.

Materials and Methods Of 482 distributed standardized questionnaires, 328 patient and 31 physician questionnaires (urological and general practitioners in and around Düsseldorf) were analyzed over a period of 11 months. Questions were asked concerning general knowledge about prostate cancer, current diagnostic procedures, and knowledge about mp-MRI and MRI-guided biopsy.

Results 70 % of the patients regarded accurate and exact diagnostics of prostate carcinomas as very important and 68 % considered MP-MRI a useful technique. 28 % of the patients with elevated PSA levels and negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) received MP-MRI as a secondary diagnostic. More than half of the patients estimated their overall knowledge about prostate cancer mediocre or worse and wished for more information about MR diagnostics. The majority of physicians (55 %) ordered MP-MRI studies of the prostate and 68 % saw their basic role in secondary diagnostics.

Conclusion In this regional assessment mp-MRI of the prostate was considered useful by patients and practitioners. Currently, there still is a considerable discrepancy between recommended and the actual number of conducted MP-MRI studies, particularly in patients after previous negative TRUS-GB, although practitioners already see the benefit in this patient collective. Even though the use of prostate MRI is frequently more established than suggested in the current German S3-guideline, its full potential has not yet been exploited. More comprehensive information about the applications and diagnostic benefits of prostate MRI is needed and desired among patients and physicians.

Key Points 

• The use of prostate MRI is frequently more established than suggested in the current German S3-guideline (12/2016)

• The full potential of mp-MRI of the prostate has not been exploited

• More information about the clinical benefit and potential of prostate MRI is necessary and desired by patients and clinicians

Citation Format

• Ullrich T, Schimmöller L, Oymanns M et al. Current Utilization and Acceptance of Multiparametric MRI in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. A Regional Survey. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 419 – 426

Key words

prostate cancer - multiparametric MRI - MRI-guided biopsy - questionnaire survey

• References

• 1 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M. et al. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 2013 International Agency for Research on Cancer website
• 2 Murphy G, Haider M, Ghai S. et al. The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 1229-1238
• 3 Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 17.e1-17.e7
• 4 Park BK, Park JW, Park SY. et al. Prospective evaluation of 3T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: W876-W881
• 5 Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 713-720
• 6 Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010; 183: 520-527
• 7 Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B. et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390-397
• 8 Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M. et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 8-19
• 9 Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C. et al. MR-guided in-bore biopsy: Differences between prostate cancer detection and localization within primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 92-99
• 10 Bloch BN, Genega EM, Costa DN. et al. Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2201-2210
• 11 Ouzzane A, Puech P, Villers A. MRI and surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22: 231-236
• 12 Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
• 13 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): Konsultationsfassung: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 4.0, 2016 AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Prostatakarzinom.58.0.html (Zugriff am: 20.03.2017)
• 14 Graham J, Kirkbride P, Kimberly C. et al. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 2014; 348: f7524
• 15 The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. Clinical Guideline 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175
• 16 EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2016. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Prostate-Cancer-2016.pdf
• 17 Mueller-Lisse UG, Lewerich B, Mueller-Lisse UL. et al. MRI of the Prostate in Germany: Online Survey among Radiologists. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 703-711
• 18 Puech P, Randazzo M, Ouzzane A. et al. How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?. Curr Opin Urol 2015; 25: 522-535
• 19 Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627-636
• 20 Heijnsdijk EA, der KinderenA, Wever EM. et al. Overdetection, overtreatment and costs in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2009; 101: 1833-1838
• 21 Moore CM, Taneja SS. Integrating MRI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2016; 26: 466-471
• 22 Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P. et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1045-1053
• 23 Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C. et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 2103-2108
• 24 Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ. Commentary regarding the inter-reader reproducibility of PI-RADS version 2. Abdominal Radiology 2016; 41: 907-909
• 25 Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse UG. et al. MRT der Prostata: Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: 21-28
• 26 Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S. et al. Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology 2015; 277: 741-750
• 27 Willis SR, van der Meulen J, Valerio M. et al. A review of economic evaluations of diagnostic strategies using imaging in men at risk of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2015; 25: 483-489
• 28 Ahmed HU, El-Shater BosailyA, Brown LC. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-822
• 29 Egbers N, Schwenke C, Maxeiner A. et al. MRI-guided core needle biopsy of the prostate: acceptance and side effects. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015; 21: 215-221
• 30 Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit – Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2015 – Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2, Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). 2017