https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
Attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: A national survey among Italian urologists
Submitted: July 5, 2020
Accepted: September 3, 2020
Published: December 17, 2020
Accepted: September 3, 2020
Abstract Views: 847
PDF: 375
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Objective: We aimed to assess the attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate among Italian urologists.
Material and Methods: A national, web-based survey was performed. A questionnaire composed of 18 multiple choice questions was e-mailed to 941 currently active urologists, members of the Italian Society of Urology. Preserving anonymity, respondents’ demographics were collected (e.g. geographic region, type of workplace, prostate procedures performed) as well as data concerning their attitudes and perceptions towards mpMRI (e.g. indications deemed appropriate, degree of confidence in mpMRI results). Data were expressed as raw numbers and percentages of survey answers.
Results: In total, 98 responses were received (participation rate = 10.4%). Respondents mostly worked in urban areas (96%) and primarily in hospital settings (89%), while 48% of them worked in southern Italy. 97% of respondents considered mpMRI useful to detect Prostate Cancer (PCa) in patients with prior negative biopsy, 64% in biopsy-naïve patients and 60% for PCa pre-operatory staging. About half (42%) of the participants declared that mpMRI results frequently lead them to change PCa management strategy. Standardization of mpMRI acquisition and reporting was partially unsatisfactory. Reported waiting time for mpMRI scans was longer than 4 weeks for 51% of respondents. The major limitation of this survey includes the small number of participants.
Conclusions: Prostate mpMRI is used by Italian urologists mainly for detection and for pre-operative staging of PCa. Further improvements in terms of mpMRI availability and report standardization are required.
Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Ponsiglione A, Romeo V, Verde F, Creta M, et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer detection on MRI: A radiomic shape features study. Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jul;116:144-149.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.05.006
Mottet N, van den Bergh R.C.N, Briers E, Cornford P, De Santis M, Fanti S, et al. EAU - EANM - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, 2019
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Manfredi M, Mele F, Garrou D, Walz J, Fütterer JJ, Russo F, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI: technical conduct, standardized report and clinical use. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018 Feb;70(1):9-21.
Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol. 2015 Nov;70(11):1165-76.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, 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 Mar 18.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, Schick V, Peters I, Schedl P, et al. Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2. PLoS One. 2016 Sep 22;11(9):e0162879.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162879
Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging Facilities' Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI. Acad Radiol. 2018 Feb;25(2):188-195.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.08.013
Muthigi A, Sidana A, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Maruf M, Valayil S, et al. Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):32.e1-32.e7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.08.008
Manley BJ, Brockman JA, Raup VT, Fowler KJ, Andriole GL. Prostate MRI: a national survey of Urologist's attitudes and perceptions. Int Braz J Urol. 2016 May-Jun;42(3):464-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0235
Renard-Penna R, Rouvière O, Puech P, Borgogno C, Abbas L, Roy C, et al. Current practice and access to prostate MR imaging in France. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016 Nov;97(11):1125-1129.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.06.010
Bukavina L, Tilburt JC, Konety B, Shah ND, Gross CP, Yu JB, et al. Perceptions of Prostate MRI and Fusion Biopsy of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists for Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer: Results from a National Survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Sep 12.
Tu X, Lin T, Cai D, Liu Z, Yang L, Wei Q.The optimal core number and site for MRI-targeted biopsy of prostate? A systematic review and pooled analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Jan 29.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03639-5
De Luca S, Fiori C, Bollito E, Garrou D, Aimar R, Cattaneo G, et al. Risk of Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer upgrading at radical prostatectomy is significantly reduced by target biopsy compared to standard biopsy technique. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019 Oct 10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03367-8
Russo F, Manfredi M, Panebianco V, Armando E, De Luca S, Mazzetti S, et al. Radiological Wheeler staging system: a retrospective cohort analysis to improve the local staging of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019 Jun;71(3):264-272.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03248-X
Kasivisvanathan V, Ambrosi A, Giganti F, Chau E, Kirkham A, Punwani S, et al. A Dedicated Prostate MRI Teaching Course Improves the Ability of the Urologist to Interpret Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric MRI. Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):203-204.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.033
Tooker GM, Truong H, Pinto PA, Siddiqui MM. National Survey of Patterns Employing Targeted MRI/US Guided Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol. 2019 Mar 8;12(2):97-103.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000489426
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Caglic I, Kovac V, Barrett T. Multiparametric MRI - local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol. 2019 May 8;53(2):159-170.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2019-0021
Glass AS, Dall'Era MA. Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019 Feb 11.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14705
Fam MM, Yabes JG, Macleod LC, Bandari J, Turner RM 2nd, Lopa SH, et al. Increasing Utilization of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in ProstateCancer Active Surveillance. Urology. 2019 Mar 30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.037
Höffkes F, Arthanareeswaran VK, Stolzenburg JU, Ganzer R. Rate of misclassification in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy but fulfilling active surveillance criteria according to the European Association of Urology guidelines on prostate cancer: a high-volume center experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018 Dec;70(6):588-593.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03126-0
Puech P, Randazzo M, Ouzzane A, Gaillard V, Rastinehad A, Lemaitre L, et al. How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI? Curr Opin Urol. 2015 Nov;25(6):522-35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000217
Stanzione A, Cuocolo R, Cocozza S, Romeo V, Persico F, Fusco F, et al. Detection of Extraprostatic Extension of Cancer on Biparametric MRI Combining Texture Analysis and Machine Learning: Preliminary Results. Acad Radiol. 2019 Jan 14.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.12.025
Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Rusconi G, Petretta M, Ponsiglione A, Fusco F, et al. PSA-density does not improve bi-parametric prostate MR detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy naïve patient population. Eur J Radiol. 2018 Jul;104:64-70.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.004
Salvaggio G, Calamia M, Purpura P, Bartolotta TV, Picone D, Dispensa N, et al. Role of apparent diffusion coefficient values in prostate diseases characterization on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019 Apr;71(2):154-160.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03065-5
How to Cite
Stanzione, A., Creta, M., Imbriaco, M., La Rocca, R., Capece, M., Esposito, F., Imbimbo, C., Fusco, F., Celentano, G., Napolitano, L., Mangiapia, F., Mirone, V., & Longo, N. (2020). Attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: A national survey among Italian urologists. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 92(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.