ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training
ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-19
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Barentsz, Jelle O.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
de Rooij, Maarten;Israel, Bas;Barentsz, Jelle O.
目的本研究旨在定义基于共识的标准，用于获取和报告前列腺MRI，并建立图像质量的先决条件。方法来自欧洲泌尿生殖放射学会（ESUR）和EAU泌尿影像科（ESUI）的44名前列腺癌影像学专家参与了德尔菲共识过程。小组成员完成了两轮问卷调查，共55个项目，分为三个标题：图像质量评估，解释和报告，放射科医生的经验加上培训中心。在55个问题中，31个问题被评为9分制的协议，24个是多项选择或开放。对于一致项目，一致同意率>= 70%（评分7-9），不一致率= 50%。结果31个问题中有24个达成共识，16个问题中有11个达成共识。一致性声明为：（1）应进行图像质量报告并将其应用于临床实践;（2）对于判读性能，放射科医生应使用自我性能测试和组织病理学反馈，将其判读与专家判读进行比较，并使用外部性能评估;（3）放射科医生在判读前列腺MRI之前必须参加理论和实践课程。局限性在于结果是专家意见，而不是基于系统性综述或荟萃分析。关于前列腺MRI评估作为质量标记的结局声明，尚未达成共识。结论：ESUR和ESUI专家小组在提高前列腺MRI质量的问题上表现出高度一致性（74%）。检查和报告图像质量是强制性的。前列腺放射科医生应参加理论和实践课程，然后进行监督教育，并必须定期进行绩效评估。
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 = 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.