J Korean Soc Radiol.  2019 Mar;80(2):306-317. 10.3348/jksr.2019.80.2.306.

Medical Institutions' Adherence to the PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for Prostate MRI in Korea

• Kwon Y
• Choi MH
• Jung SE

• KMID: 2442521
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2019.80.2.306

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the adherence rate to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) minimum technical standards of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in Korean medical institutions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study included 103 prostate MRI examinations from 85 outside medical institutions performed from March 2015 to January 2018. The difference in adherence rate to minimal technical standards of PI-RADS v2 was compared using a Fisher's exact test between subgroups divided by the magnetic strength of MRI machine, type of medical institution and presence of genitourinary radiologist.
RESULTS
Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was obtained frequently in examinations performed in a 3-T machine, in university hospitals and in medical institutions where genitourinary radiologist work in than the others (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003). Many minimum technical standards of PI-RADS v2 showed significantly lower adherence rate in a 1.5-T machine, in a non-university hospital and in a medical institution without genitourinary radiologist than the others.
CONCLUSION
The frequency of obtaining DWI and the adherent rate to some of the PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards were significantly higher in 3-T machines, university hospitals and medical institutions with a genitourinary radiologist.

MeSH Terms

Hospitals, University
Information Systems
Korea*
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*
Prostate*

Reference

References

1. Han HH, Park JW, Na JC, Chung BH, Kim CS, Ko WJ. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in South Korea. Prost ate Int. 2015; 3:99–102.

2. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Freeman A, Allen C, Sohaib SA, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard.Radiology. 2013; 268:761–769.

3. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a metaanalysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202:343–351.

4. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H. Role of MRI in prostate cancer detection.NMR Biomed. 2014; 27:16–24.

5. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011; 59:477–494.

6. 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; 69:16–40.

7. Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging facilities'adherence to PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards for the performance of prostate MRI. Acad Rad/iiol. 2018; 25:188–195.

8. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011; 107:1411–1418.

9. Ren J, Yang Y, Zhang J, Xu J, Liu Y, Wei M, et al. T(2)-weighted combined with diffusion-weighted images for evaluating prostatic transition zone tumors at 3 Tesla. Future Oncol. 2013; 9:585–593.

10. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection—histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010; 255:89–99.

11. Jyoti R, Jain TP, Haxhimolla H, Liddell H, Barrett SE. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient ratio on 3.0T MRI with prostate cancer Gleason score. Eur J Radiol Open. 2018; 5:58–63.

12. Sokmen BK, Sokmen D, Ucar N, Ozkurt H, Simsek A. The correlation between biological activity and diffusion-weighted MR imaging and ADC value in cases with prostate cancer.Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2017; 89:277–281.

13. Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer aggressiveness: using ADC and ADC ratio in determining Gleason score. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 207:114–120.

14. Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, Yoshikawa T, Ohno Y, Obara M, et al. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values obtained using high b-value when diagnosing prostate cancer using 3 tesla MRI: comparison between ultrahigh b-value (2000 s/mm²) and standard high b-value (1000 s/mm²).J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 36:198–205.

15. Tamada T, Kanomata N, Sone T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, Higashi H, et al. High b value (2000 s/mm) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1000 s/mm² for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e96619.

16. Fennessy FM, Fedorov A, Penzkofer T, Kim KW, Hirsch MS, Vangel MG, et al. Quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis of prostate cancer DCE-MRI at 3T: comparison of two arterial input functions on cancer detection with digitized whole mount histopathological validation.Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 33:886–894.

17. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, Jager GJ, Van Leenders GJ, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003; 229:248–254.

18. Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK. Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue.Hum Pathol. 1993; 24:220–226.

19. Nicholson B, Schaefer G, Theodorescu D. Angiogenesis in prostate cancer: biology and therapeutic opportunities. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2001; 20:297–319.

20. Siegal JA, Yu E, Brawer MK. Topography of neovascularity in human prostate carcinoma.Cancer. 1995; 75:2545–2551.

21. Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, Cianci R, D'Annibale M, Colasante A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparamet-ric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018; 101:17–23.

22. Jambor I, Kähkönen E, Taimen P, Merisaari H, Saunavaara J, Alanen K, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric 3T prostate MRI in patients with elevated PSA, normal digital rectal examination, and no previous biopsy.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 41:1394–1404.

23. Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, Lu Z, Griswold MA, Gulani V. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging-guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men.Radiology. 2017; 285:157–166.

24. Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, Fennessy FM, Fedorov A, Maier SE, et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate ^cancer.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37:1035–1054.