Prostate MRI technical parameters standardization: A systematic review on adherence to PI-RADSv2 acquisition protocol

Renato Cuocolo; Arnaldo Stanzione; Andrea Ponsiglione; Francesco Verde; Antonio Ventimiglia; Valeria Romeo; Mario Petretta; Massimo Imbriaco

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108662

Prostate MRI technical parameters standardization: A systematic review on adherence to PI-RADSv2 acquisition protocol

Eur J Radiol. 2019 Nov:120:108662. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108662. Epub 2019 Sep 10.

Authors

Renato Cuocolo¹, Arnaldo Stanzione², Andrea Ponsiglione¹, Francesco Verde¹, Antonio Ventimiglia¹, Valeria Romeo¹, Mario Petretta³, Massimo Imbriaco¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via Pansini 5, Naples, Italy.
² Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via Pansini 5, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: arnaldo.stanzione@unina.it.
³ Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via Pansini 5, Naples, Italy.

PMID: 31539790
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108662

Abstract

Purpose: The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System has been developed to standardize prostate MRI in terms of acquisition, interpretation and reporting. It received a major revision in late 2014 (PI-RADSv2). Recently, doubts have been raised on imaging facilities adherence to its acquisition protocol. With this systematic review, we assessed adherence to PI-RADSv2 minimum technical specifications in literature, to achieve a better understanding of issues limiting their diffusion.

Method: Multiple medical literature databases were extensively searched to retrieve original studies published after January 2016 performing prostate MRI. Information pertaining acquisition protocols and patient enrolment were recorded for analysis. Technical parameters were dichotomized in relation to adherence to the corresponding minimal technical requirements.

Results: A total of 150 studies were included for analysis. Only 5% reported every technical parameter specified in the PI-RADSv2 document requirements, none of which completely met guideline specifications. Overall, 19% were in line with PI-RADSv2 for all reported MRI acquisition parameters. The adherence was lowest for T2-weighted frequency in-plane resolution (12%), diffusion-weighted imaging field of view (40%), apparent diffusion coefficient map low b-value (27%) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging temporal resolution (43%). Considering its role in image interpretation, it must be highlighted that only 59% of studies reporting diffusion-weighted imaging high b-value follow recommendations.

Conclusions: Adherence to PI-RADSv2 minimum technical standards is heterogeneous in the scientific community. Our findings endorse the need for greater diffusion of PI-RADSv2 guidelines to achieve protocol standardization and support the notion that some requirements might benefit from streamlining to improve clinical applicability.

Keywords: Diffusion-weighted imaging; Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging; MRI; PI-RADS; Prostate cancer; Systematic review.

Publication types

Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Aged
Clinical Protocols / standards
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods
Humans
Image Enhancement / standards
Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods
Male
Prostatic Neoplasms / diagnosis*
Reference Standards
Retrospective Studies