• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification

M. Wagnerova, I. Macova, P. Hanus, M. Jurka, O. Capoun, L. Lambert, A. Burgetova

. 2023 ; 14 (1) : 215. [pub] 20231210

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23022334

Grantová podpora
MH CZ-DRO Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
General University Hospital in Prague-VFN Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
00064165 Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
Cooperatio Charles University in Prague
Medical Diagnostics Charles University in Prague
Basic Medical Sciences Charles University in Prague

OBJECTIVES: To quantify extraprostatic findings (EPFs) on prostate MRI, estimate the proportion of reported and unreported EPFs, assess their clinical importance, and propose standardized reporting of EPFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate 3-T MRI studies, reports, and clinical data from 623 patients (age 67.9 ± 8.2 years) were retrospectively analyzed and re-evaluated for the presence of EPFs and their clinical significance: E1-no finding or findings that have no clinical significance; E2-potentially significant findings; and E3-significant findings. RESULTS: Secondary reading identified 1236 EPFs in 593 patients (1.98 ± 1.13 EPFs per patient, no EPFs in 30 patients), from which 468 (37.8%) were mentioned in the original report. The most common findings included diverticulosis (44% of patients), hydrocele (34%), inguinal fat hernia (16%), and bladder wall trabecular hypertrophy (15%). There were 80 (6.5%) E2 EPFs and 30 (2.4%) E3 EPFs. From E3 EPFs, 10 (33%) were not originally reported. A workup was suggested in 35 (52%) of the 67 originally reported E2 and E3 findings with follow-up and performed in 20 (30%). Fourteen (21%) EPFs in 11 patients influenced their management. Four experienced radiologists originally reported 1.8 to 2.5 findings per patient (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EPFs on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. Only 30% of E2 and E3 findings are further explored, and 21% influence patient management. We suggest that an "E" category should be attached to the PI-RADS system to identify the presence of EPFs that require further workup. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. We advocate standardized reporting of extraprostatic findings indicating their clinical significance. KEY POINTS: • Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent with an average of two findings per patient. • 2.4% of extraprostatic findings are significant, and 33% of these are not reported. • There is a significant variability among experienced radiologists in reporting extraprostatic findings.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23022334
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240116163015.0
007      
ta
008      
240105s2023 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s13244-023-01549-9 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38072909
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Wagnerova, Monika $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification / $c M. Wagnerova, I. Macova, P. Hanus, M. Jurka, O. Capoun, L. Lambert, A. Burgetova
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: To quantify extraprostatic findings (EPFs) on prostate MRI, estimate the proportion of reported and unreported EPFs, assess their clinical importance, and propose standardized reporting of EPFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate 3-T MRI studies, reports, and clinical data from 623 patients (age 67.9 ± 8.2 years) were retrospectively analyzed and re-evaluated for the presence of EPFs and their clinical significance: E1-no finding or findings that have no clinical significance; E2-potentially significant findings; and E3-significant findings. RESULTS: Secondary reading identified 1236 EPFs in 593 patients (1.98 ± 1.13 EPFs per patient, no EPFs in 30 patients), from which 468 (37.8%) were mentioned in the original report. The most common findings included diverticulosis (44% of patients), hydrocele (34%), inguinal fat hernia (16%), and bladder wall trabecular hypertrophy (15%). There were 80 (6.5%) E2 EPFs and 30 (2.4%) E3 EPFs. From E3 EPFs, 10 (33%) were not originally reported. A workup was suggested in 35 (52%) of the 67 originally reported E2 and E3 findings with follow-up and performed in 20 (30%). Fourteen (21%) EPFs in 11 patients influenced their management. Four experienced radiologists originally reported 1.8 to 2.5 findings per patient (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EPFs on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. Only 30% of E2 and E3 findings are further explored, and 21% influence patient management. We suggest that an "E" category should be attached to the PI-RADS system to identify the presence of EPFs that require further workup. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent, but only 2.4% are clinically significant (E3), and 33% of these are not reported. We advocate standardized reporting of extraprostatic findings indicating their clinical significance. KEY POINTS: • Extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI are frequent with an average of two findings per patient. • 2.4% of extraprostatic findings are significant, and 33% of these are not reported. • There is a significant variability among experienced radiologists in reporting extraprostatic findings.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Macova, Iva $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hanus, Petr $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jurka, Martin $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Capoun, Otakar $u Department of Urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Lambert, Lukas $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic. lukas.lambert@vfn.cz $1 https://orcid.org/0000000322994707 $7 xx0145830
700    1_
$a Burgetova, Andrea $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague 2, 128 08, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00181719 $t Insights into imaging $x 1869-4101 $g Roč. 14, č. 1 (2023), s. 215
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38072909 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240105 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240116163012 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2036243 $s 1208779
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 14 $c 1 $d 215 $e 20231210 $i 1869-4101 $m Insights into imaging $n Insights Imaging $x MED00181719
GRA    __
$a MH CZ-DRO $p Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
GRA    __
$a General University Hospital in Prague-VFN $p Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
GRA    __
$a 00064165 $p Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic
GRA    __
$a Cooperatio $p Charles University in Prague
GRA    __
$a Medical Diagnostics $p Charles University in Prague
GRA    __
$a Basic Medical Sciences $p Charles University in Prague
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240105

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

    Možnosti archivace