Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A critical analysis of deficiencies in the quality of information contained in prostate multiparametric MRI requests and reports

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly recognised as an important tool in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. PI-RADSv2 guidelines recommend that important clinical information including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, examination findings, and biopsy information should be included in mpMRI requests. PIRADS score and PSA density (PSAD) are both independent predictors for the presence of a clinically significant prostate cancer.

Aims

This study aims to evaluate the quality of mpMRI requests and reports at our institution in accordance with these parameters.

Methods

All prostate mpMRIs performed by radiology services in Galway University Hospital between 1st September 2019 and 1st March 2020 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria were applied. Requests and reports were analysed for the presence of the following parameters: PSA-results, examination findings, biopsy information, PI-RADS score, prostate volume, and PSAD.

Results

A total of 586 mpMRIs were performed, and of these, 546 were included. PSA value was provided in 497 (91%) of requests, exam findings in 355 (65%), and biopsy information in 452 (82%). PIRADS score was included in 224 (41%) of reports, prostate volume in 178 (32.6%), and PSAD in 106 (19%).

Conclusions

Great variation in the quality of information contained in both requests and reports for prostate mpMRIs exists within our service. We aim to improve this by collaborating with our radiology colleagues to develop a proforma for requesting and reporting of mpMRIs for our radiology systems to ensure important clinical and radiological information is provided in future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2012) International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61(6):1079–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Litwin MS, Tan H-J (2017) The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA 317(24):2532–2542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. NiMhurchu E, O’Kelly F, Murphy IG et al (2016) Predictive value of PI-RADS classification in MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Clin Radiol 71(4):375–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vargas H, Hötker A, Goldman D et al (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26(6):1606–1612

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD012663-CD

  6. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AES, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 389(10071):815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg H, Ahmad AE, Chandrasekar T et al (2020) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound informed prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy Naïve men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 203(6):1085–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Association of Urology (2021) Prostate cancer guidelines. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office. ISBN 978-94-92671-13-4

  9. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA et al (2015) Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(6):1112–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grey ADR, Chana MS, Popert R et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 115(5):728–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K et al (2017) Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int 119(2):225–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 72(2):250–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Saolta Group (2019) Saolta University Healthcare Group Operational Plan 2019. Irish Health Service Executive

  15. Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP et al (2013) 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 37(5):1035–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B et al (2020) Five-year outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging–based active surveillance for prostate cancer: a large cohort study. Eur Urol 78(3):443–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67(4):627–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK et al (2015) Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 33(5):202.e1–.e7

  19. Nyk Ł, Tayara O, Ząbkowski T et al (2021) The role of mpMRI in qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol 21(1):82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P et al (2017) Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations—a report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol 71(4):648–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

    Orla Cullivan, Emma Roche, Mohammad Hegazy, Mohamed Taha, Garrett Durkan, Paddy O’Malley & Catherine M. Dowling

  2. Department of Radiology, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland

    Peter McCarthy

Authors
  1. Orla Cullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emma Roche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Hegazy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Garrett Durkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paddy O’Malley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Catherine M. Dowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

O. Cullivan: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

E. Roche: data analysis, manuscript writing.

M. Hegazy: data analysis, manuscript writing.

M. Taha: project development, manuscript editing.

G. Durkan: manuscript editing.

P. O’Malley: manuscript editing.

P. McCarthy: project development, manuscript editing.

C.M Dowling: project development, manuscript writing and editing.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Orla Cullivan, Emma Roche, and Mohammad Hegazy. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Orla Cullivan and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orla Cullivan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cullivan, O., Roche, E., Hegazy, M. et al. A critical analysis of deficiencies in the quality of information contained in prostate multiparametric MRI requests and reports. Ir J Med Sci 192, 27–31 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02875-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02875-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation