Difference in MRI-guided biopsy cancer detection rates between individual clinicians

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: A number of studies have described the overall institutional learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy but none have evaluated differences and interactions between clinicians. Therefore, we aim to measure and compare the cancer detection rates between individual radiologists and urologists at a single academic institution. Methods: A consecutive sample of patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy at a single institution were included for analysis. The detection of any and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4) prostate cancer was compared between radiologists and urologists after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a perlesion basis and only the results of the targeted cores were considered in the primary analysis. Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients with 418 lesions were included in the study. Prostate cancer of any grade was detected in 43.7% (183/418) of targeted lesions. There was no difference in the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scores attributed by each radiologist (p = 0.43). The individual radiologist cancer detection rate for both overall and clinically significant cancer was similar across each PIRADS score except for the detection of any cancer in PIRADS 3 lesions (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the detection rates of any grade or clinically significant cancer between urologists. Conclusion: This single institutional analysis found that the performance of radiologists and urologists was largely comparable. Theonly variation observed was among radiologists for PIRADS 3 lesions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299.e1-299.e6
JournalUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume37
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Biopsy
Information Systems
Image-Guided Biopsy
Prostate
Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Learning Curve
Neoplasm Grading
Radiologists
Demography
Urologists

Keywords

  • Image-guided biopsy
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Prostate cancer

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

@article{584128862a5e47d886a699b9357f33e6,
title = "Difference in MRI-guided biopsy cancer detection rates between individual clinicians",
abstract = "Objective: A number of studies have described the overall institutional learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy but none have evaluated differences and interactions between clinicians. Therefore, we aim to measure and compare the cancer detection rates between individual radiologists and urologists at a single academic institution. Methods: A consecutive sample of patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy at a single institution were included for analysis. The detection of any and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4) prostate cancer was compared between radiologists and urologists after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a perlesion basis and only the results of the targeted cores were considered in the primary analysis. Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients with 418 lesions were included in the study. Prostate cancer of any grade was detected in 43.7{\%} (183/418) of targeted lesions. There was no difference in the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scores attributed by each radiologist (p = 0.43). The individual radiologist cancer detection rate for both overall and clinically significant cancer was similar across each PIRADS score except for the detection of any cancer in PIRADS 3 lesions (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the detection rates of any grade or clinically significant cancer between urologists. Conclusion: This single institutional analysis found that the performance of radiologists and urologists was largely comparable. Theonly variation observed was among radiologists for PIRADS 3 lesions.",
keywords = "Image-guided biopsy, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate cancer",
author = "Sathianathen, {Niranjan J.} and Warlick, {Christopher A} and Ayman Soubra and Priyamvadha Balaji and Greg Metzger and Spilseth, {Benjamin D} and Paari Murugan and Ordonez, {Maria A} and Weight, {Christopher J} and Konety, {Badrinath R}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "299.e1--299.e6",
journal = "Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Difference in MRI-guided biopsy cancer detection rates between individual clinicians

AU - Sathianathen, Niranjan J.

AU - Warlick, Christopher A

AU - Soubra, Ayman

AU - Balaji, Priyamvadha

AU - Metzger, Greg

AU - Spilseth, Benjamin D

AU - Murugan, Paari

AU - Ordonez, Maria A

AU - Weight, Christopher J

AU - Konety, Badrinath R

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Objective: A number of studies have described the overall institutional learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy but none have evaluated differences and interactions between clinicians. Therefore, we aim to measure and compare the cancer detection rates between individual radiologists and urologists at a single academic institution. Methods: A consecutive sample of patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy at a single institution were included for analysis. The detection of any and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4) prostate cancer was compared between radiologists and urologists after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a perlesion basis and only the results of the targeted cores were considered in the primary analysis. Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients with 418 lesions were included in the study. Prostate cancer of any grade was detected in 43.7% (183/418) of targeted lesions. There was no difference in the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scores attributed by each radiologist (p = 0.43). The individual radiologist cancer detection rate for both overall and clinically significant cancer was similar across each PIRADS score except for the detection of any cancer in PIRADS 3 lesions (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the detection rates of any grade or clinically significant cancer between urologists. Conclusion: This single institutional analysis found that the performance of radiologists and urologists was largely comparable. Theonly variation observed was among radiologists for PIRADS 3 lesions.

AB - Objective: A number of studies have described the overall institutional learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy but none have evaluated differences and interactions between clinicians. Therefore, we aim to measure and compare the cancer detection rates between individual radiologists and urologists at a single academic institution. Methods: A consecutive sample of patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy at a single institution were included for analysis. The detection of any and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4) prostate cancer was compared between radiologists and urologists after adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a perlesion basis and only the results of the targeted cores were considered in the primary analysis. Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients with 418 lesions were included in the study. Prostate cancer of any grade was detected in 43.7% (183/418) of targeted lesions. There was no difference in the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) scores attributed by each radiologist (p = 0.43). The individual radiologist cancer detection rate for both overall and clinically significant cancer was similar across each PIRADS score except for the detection of any cancer in PIRADS 3 lesions (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the detection rates of any grade or clinically significant cancer between urologists. Conclusion: This single institutional analysis found that the performance of radiologists and urologists was largely comparable. Theonly variation observed was among radiologists for PIRADS 3 lesions.

KW - Image-guided biopsy

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061717304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061717304&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.032

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.032

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 299.e1-299.e6

JO - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

JF - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 5

ER -