The aim was to develop clinical guidelines for multi-parametric MRI of the prostate by a group of prostate MRI experts from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), based on literature evidence and consensus expert opinion. True evidence-based guidelines could not be formulated, but a compromise, reflected by “minimal” and “optimal” requirements has been made. The scope of these ESUR guidelines is to promulgate high quality MRI in acquisition and evaluation with the correct indications for prostate cancer across the whole of Europe and eventually outside Europe. The guidelines for the optimal technique and three protocols for “detection”, “staging” and “node and bone” are presented. The use of endorectal coil vs. pelvic phased array coil and 1.5 vs. 3 T is discussed. Clinical indications and a PI-RADS classification for structured reporting are presented.Key Points• This report provides guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer.• Clinical indications, and minimal and optimal imaging acquisition protocols are provided.• A structured reporting system (PI-RADS) is described.
Objectives This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. Results Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. Conclusions An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. Key Points • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.
• Follow up advised only in patients with TML and additional risk factors. • Annual US advised for patients with risk factors up to age 55. • If TML is found with testicular mass, urgent specialist referral advised. • Risk factors - personal/ family history of GCT, maldescent, orchidopexy, testicular atrophy.
We used large sequence polymorphisms to determine the genotypes of 397 isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from human immunodeficiency virus-uninfected Vietnamese adults with pulmonary (n ؍ 235) or meningeal (n ؍ 162) tuberculosis. We compared the pretreatment radiographic appearances of pulmonary tuberculosis and the presentation, response to treatment, and outcome of tuberculous meningitis between the genotypes. Multivariate analysis identified variables independently associated with genotype and outcome. A higher proportion of adults with pulmonary tuberculosis caused by the Euro-American genotype had consolidation on chest X-ray than was the case with disease caused by other genotypes (P ؍ 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that meningitis caused by the East Asian/Beijing genotype was independently associated with a shorter duration of illness before presentation and fewer cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leukocytes. Older age, fewer CSF leukocytes, and the presence of hemiplegia (but not strain lineage) were independently associated with death or severe disability, although the East Asian/Beijing genotype was strongly associated with drugresistant tuberculosis. The genotype of M. tuberculosis influenced the presenting features of pulmonary and meningeal tuberculosis. The association between the East Asian/Beijing lineage and disease progression and CSF leukocyte count suggests the lineage may alter the presentation of meningitis by influencing the intracerebral inflammatory response. In addition, increased drug resistance among bacteria of the East Asian/Beijing lineage might influence the response to treatment. This study suggests the genetic diversity of M. tuberculosis has important clinical consequences.
Background: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. Objective: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. Design, setting, and participants: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. Results and limitations: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Conclusions: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. Patient summary: We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) was first developed in the 1970s. TRUS-guided biopsy, under local anaesthetic and prophylactic antibiotics, is now the most widely accepted method to diagnose prostate cancer. However, the sensitivity and specificity of greyscale TRUS in the detection of prostate cancer is low. Prostate cancer most commonly appears as a hypoechoic focal lesion in the peripheral zone on TRUS but the appearances are variable with considerable overlap with benign lesions. Because of the low accuracy of greyscale TRUS, TRUS-guided biopsies have become established in the acquisition of systematic biopsies from standard locations. The number of systematic biopsies has increased over the years, with 10-12 cores currently accepted as the minimum standard. This article describes the technique of TRUS and biopsy and its complications. Novel modalities including contrast-enhanced modes and elastography as well as fusion techniques for increasing the sensitivity of TRUS-guided prostate-targeted biopsies are discussed along with their role in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.
Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.