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.

Department of Radiology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague Prague 2 128 08 Czech Republic

Department of Urology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital Prague Prague 2 128 08 Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:5404–5416. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Richenberg J, Løgager V, Panebianco V, et al. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:6940–6952. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z. PubMed DOI PMC

Cutaia G, Tosto G, Cannella R, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on multiparametric prostate MRI. Radiol Med (Torino) 2020;125:204–213. doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01106-9. PubMed DOI

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. PubMed DOI

Pooler BD, Kim DH, Lam VP, Burnside ES, Pickhardt PJ. CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): benchmark values from a clinical screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1232–1237. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11272. PubMed DOI PMC

Taya M, McHargue C, Ricci ZJ, et al. Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:429–437. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1753-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Sherrer RL, Lai WS, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Incidental findings on multiparametric MRI performed for evaluation of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43:696–701. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1237-x. PubMed DOI PMC

Ediz SS, Gunduz N. The relationship between PI-RADS categories and incidental findings in multiparametric prostate MRI. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31:1030–1034. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2021.09.1030. PubMed DOI

Girometti R, Cereser L, Bonato F, Zuiani C. Evolution of prostate MRI: from multiparametric standard to less-is-better and different-is better strategies. Eur Radiol Exp. 2019;3:5. doi: 10.1186/s41747-019-0088-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Morgan AE, Berland LL, Ananyev SS, Lockhart ME, Kolettis PN. Extraurinary incidental findings on CT for hematuria: the radiologist’s role and downstream cost analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:1160–1167. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12483. PubMed DOI

Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2010;83:276–289. doi: 10.1259/bjr/98067945. PubMed DOI PMC

Reichert MC, Lammert F. The genetic epidemiology of diverticulosis and diverticular disease: emerging evidence. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2015;3:409–418. doi: 10.1177/2050640615576676. PubMed DOI PMC

Ponsiglione A, Campo I, Sachs C, et al. Extraprostatic incidental findings on prostate mpMRI: a pictorial review from the ESUR junior network. Eur J Radiol. 2023;166:110984. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110984. PubMed DOI

Brembilla G, Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, et al. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:3383–3392. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06654-2. PubMed DOI

Managadze M, Tchanturaia Z (2006) Trabeculation of urinary bladder by ultrasound in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Georgian Med News 137:16–18 PubMed

Trivedi J, Sutherland T, Page M. Incidental findings in and around the prostate on prostate MRI: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2021;12:37. doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00979-7. PubMed DOI PMC

Kizilgoz V, Kantarci M, Tonkaz G, Levent A, Ogul H. Incidental findings on prostate MRI: a close look at the field of view in this anatomical region. Acta Radiol. 2022;64:1676–1693. doi: 10.1177/02841851221131243. PubMed DOI

Khosa F, Krinsky G, Macari M, Yucel EK, Berland LL. Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 2: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on Vascular Findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:789–794. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.021. PubMed DOI

Herts BR, Silverman SG, Hindman NM, et al. Management of the incidental renal mass on CT: a white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:264–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.028. PubMed DOI

Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM, et al. Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:754–773. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.06.013. PubMed DOI

Orme NM, Fletcher JG, Siddiki HA, et al. Incidental findings in imaging research: evaluating incidence, benefit, and burden. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1525–1532. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.317. PubMed DOI PMC

The impact of modifiable factors on image quality of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and PI-RADS scores