A semi-automated software program to assess the impact of second reads in prostate MRI for equivocal lesions: results from a UK tertiary referral centre.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) second read using a semi-automated software program in the one-stop clinic, where patients undergo multiparametric MRI, review and biopsy planning in one visit. We looked at concordance between readers for patients with equivocal scans and the possibility for biopsy deferral in this group. METHODS: We present data from 664 consecutive patients. Scans were reported by seven different expert genitourinary radiologists using dedicated software (MIM®) and a Likert scale. All scans were rescored by another expert genitourinary radiologist using a customised workflow for second reads that includes annotated biopsy contours for accurate visual targeting. The number of scans in which a biopsy could have been deferred using biopsy results and prostate specific antigen density was assessed. Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 was considered clinically significant disease. Concordance between first and second reads for equivocal scans (Likert 3) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 209/664 (31%) patients scored Likert 3 on first read, 128 of which (61%) were concordant after second read. 103/209 (49%) of patients with Likert 3 scans were biopsied, with clinically significant disease in 31 (30%) cases. Considering Likert 3 scans that were both downgraded and biopsied using the workflow-generated biopsy contours, 25/103 (24%) biopsies could have been deferred. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a semi-automated workflow for accurate lesion contouring and targeting biopsies is helpful during the one-stop clinic. We observed a reduction of indeterminate scans after second reading and almost a quarter of biopsies could have been deferred, reducing the potential biopsy-related side effects.

Multiparametric prostate MRI quality assessment using a semi-automated PI-QUAL software program.

The technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate have been clearly outlined in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines, but there is still huge variability in image quality among centres across the world. It has been difficult to quantify what constitutes a good-quality image, and a first attempt to address this matter has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and its dedicated scoring sheet. This score includes the assessment of technical parameters that can be obtained from the DICOM files along with a visual evaluation of certain features on prostate MRI (e.g., anatomical structures). We retrospectively analysed the image quality of 10 scans from different vendors and magnets using a semiautomated dedicated PI-QUAL software program and compared the time needed for assessing image quality using two methods (semiautomated assessment versus manual filling of the scoring sheet). This semiautomated software is able to assess the technical parameters automatically, but the visual assessment is still performed by the radiologist. There was a significant reduction in the reporting time of prostate mpMRI quality according to PI-QUAL using the dedicated software program compared to manual filling (5'54″ versus 7'59″; p = 0.005). A semiautomated PI-QUAL software program allows the radiologist to assess the technical details related to the image quality of prostate mpMRI in a quick and reliable manner, allowing clinicians to have more confidence that the quality of mpMRI of the prostate is sufficient to determine patient care.

Sequential prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance: initial experience of a dedicated PRECISE software program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is interest in using sequential multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to assess men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations propose standardised reporting mpMRI data for these men. This includes accurate size measurements of lesions over time, but such approach is time consuming for the radiologist and there is a strong need of dedicated tools to report serial scans in a systematic manner. We present the results from an initial validation cohort using dedicated PRECISE reporting software to allow automated comparison between sequential scans on AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed baseline and follow-up scans of 20 men randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) from the MAPPED trial. Men underwent 3T mpMRI at baseline and after 6 months, and a dedicated radiologist reported the scans using both a widespread commercially-available platform (Osirix®) and a semi-automated dedicated PRECISE reporting tool (MIM®). Tumour volume by planimetry in all sequences and conspicuity on diffusion-weighted imaging were assessed. Reporting time was recorded, and we used the Wilcoxon test for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Median tumour volumes and conspicuity were similar using both approaches. The reporting time of the follow-up scan was quicker using the PRECISE reporting workflow both in the whole population (12'33″ vs 10'52″; p = 0.005) and in the dutasteride arm (15'50″ vs 12'59″; p = 0.01). A structured report including clinical and imaging data was generated according to the PRECISE recommendations and a comparison table between lesion characteristics at baseline and follow-up scans was also included. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a dedicated PRECISE reporting tool for sequential scans in men on AS results in a significant reduction in the reporting time and allows the radiologist to easily compare scans over time. This tool will help with our understanding of the natural history of mpMRI changes during AS.

What is the best way to contour lung tumors on PET scans? Multiobserver validation of a gradient-based method using a NSCLC digital PET phantom.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and consistency of a gradient-based positron emission tomography (PET) segmentation method, GRADIENT, compared with manual (MANUAL) and constant threshold (THRESHOLD) methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Contouring accuracy was evaluated with sphere phantoms and clinically realistic Monte Carlo PET phantoms of the thorax. The sphere phantoms were 10-37 mm in diameter and were acquired at five institutions emulating clinical conditions. One institution also acquired a sphere phantom with multiple source-to-background ratios of 2:1, 5:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 70:1. One observer segmented (contoured) each sphere with GRADIENT and THRESHOLD from 25% to 50% at 5% increments. Subsequently, seven physicians segmented 31 lesions (7-264 mL) from 25 digital thorax phantoms using GRADIENT, THRESHOLD, and MANUAL. RESULTS: For spheres <20 mm in diameter, GRADIENT was the most accurate with a mean absolute % error in diameter of 8.15% (10.2% SD) compared with 49.2% (51.1% SD) for 45% THRESHOLD (p < 0.005). For larger spheres, the methods were statistically equivalent. For varying source-to-background ratios, GRADIENT was the most accurate for spheres >20 mm (p < 0.065) and <20 mm (p < 0.015). For digital thorax phantoms, GRADIENT was the most accurate (p < 0.01), with a mean absolute % error in volume of 10.99% (11.9% SD), followed by 25% THRESHOLD at 17.5% (29.4% SD), and MANUAL at 19.5% (17.2% SD). GRADIENT had the least systematic bias, with a mean % error in volume of -0.05% (16.2% SD) compared with 25% THRESHOLD at -2.1% (34.2% SD) and MANUAL at -16.3% (20.2% SD; p value <0.01). Interobserver variability was reduced using GRADIENT compared with both 25% THRESHOLD and MANUAL (p value <0.01, Levene's test). CONCLUSION: GRADIENT was the most accurate and consistent technique for target volume contouring. GRADIENT was also the most robust for varying imaging conditions. GRADIENT has the potential to play an important role for tumor delineation in radiation therapy planning and response assessment.