Structured approach to resolving discordance between PI-RADS v2.1 score and targeted prostate biopsy results: an opportunity for quality improvement

Bridging Communication Gaps Between Radiologists, Referring Physicians, and Patients Through Standardized Structured Cancer Imaging Reporting: The Experience with Female Pelvic MRI Assessment Using O-RADS and a Simulated Cohort Patient Group

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether implementing structured reporting based on Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses improves communication between radiologists, referrers, and patients/caregivers and enhances diagnostic performance for determining adnexal malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively issued MRI reports in 2019-2022 performed for characterizing adnexal masses before and after implementing O-RADS MRI; 56 patients/caregivers and nine gynecologic oncologists ("referrers") were surveyed about report interpretability/clarity/satisfaction; responses for pre- and post-implementation reports were compared using Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

A total of 123 reports from before and 119 reports from after O-RADS MRI implementation were included. Survey response rates were 35.7% (20/56) for patients/caregivers and 66.7% (6/9) for referrers. For patients/caregivers, O-RADS MRI reports were clearer (p < 0.001) and more satisfactory (p < 0.001) than unstructured reports, but interpretability did not differ significantly (p = 0.14), as 28.0% (28/100) of postimplementation and 38.0% (38/100) of preimplementation reports were considered difficult to interpret. For referrers, O-RADS MRI reports were clearer, more satisfactory, and easier to interpret (p < 0.001); only 1.3% (1/77) were considered difficult to interpret. For differentiating benign from malignant adnexal lesions, O-RADS MRI showed area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99), sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.58-0.95), and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Diagnostic performance of reports before implementation could not be calculated due to many different phrases used to describe the likelihood of malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Implementing standardized structured reporting using O-RADS MRI for characterizing adnexal masses improved clarity and satisfaction for patients/caregivers and referrers. Interpretability improved for referrers but remained limited for patients/caregivers.

PI-RADS v2.1 evaluation of prostate "nodule in nodule" variants: clinical, imaging, and pathological features

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the correlation among the imaging features of prostate "nodule in nodule," clinical prostate indices, and pathology results.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the prostate images from 47 male patients who underwent MRI scans and pathological biopsy from January 2022 to July 2023. Two radiologists (R1/R2) evaluated the morphology and signal intensity of the "nodule in nodule" in a double-blind manner and calculated the PI-RADS v2.1 score, which was compared with clinical prostate indices and pathological results.

RESULTS

34.04% (16/47) of patients were pathologically diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), free/t PSA, PSA density (PSAD), and prostate gland volume (PGV) were significantly different between csPCa patients and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with prostate "nodule in nodule". R1/R2 detected 17/17 prostate "nodule in nodule" pathologically confirmed as csPCa on MRI; 10.60% (16/151) (R1) and 11.11% (17/153) (R2) had diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) PI-RADS v2.1 score of 4, and 0.66% (1/151) (R1) had a score of 3. The percentages of encapsulated, circumscribed, and atypical nodules and obscured margins were 0.00% (0/151), 0.00% (0/151), 5.96% (9/151), and 5.30% (8/151), respectively, for R1, and 0.00% (0/153), 0.00% (0/153), 5.88% (9/153), and 4.58% (7/153) for R2.

CONCLUSION

When the inner nodules of "nodule in nodule" lesions in PI-RADS v2.1 category 1 in the TZ show incomplete capsulation or obscured margins, they are considered atypical nodules and might be upgraded to PI-RADS v2.1 category 3 if they exhibit marked diffusion restriction. However, further validation is needed.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study first analyzed the relationship between clinical and pathological findings and the size, margin, and multimodal MRI manifestations of the prostate "nodule in nodule." These findings could improve the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS v2.1 for prostate lesions.

KEY POINTS

• The margin of the prostate inner nodules affects the PI-RADS v2.1 score. • The morphology of prostate "nodule in nodule" is related to their pathology. • The PI-RADS v2.1 principle requires consideration of prostate "nodule in nodule" variants.

Optimal size threshold for PIRADSv2 category 5 upgrade and its positive predictive value: is it predictive of "very high" likelihood of clinically-significant cancer?

AIM

To identify the optimal size metric and threshold for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) 5 upgrade, calculate its positive predictive value (PPV) for clinically-significant prostate cancer (csPCA), and determine if it is indicative of a "very high" likelihood of csPCA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-three PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions were evaluated. Lesion diameters were used to calculate lesion volume (LV). Pearson correlation between maximum lesion diameter (MLD) and LV was calculated. Area under the curve (AUC) for discriminating csPCA (Gleason grade ≥ 3 + 4) was calculated using MLD and LV. Optimal size thresholds (using Youden index) and highly predictive size thresholds were identified for the whole prostate (WP), peripheral zone (PZ), and transitional zone (TZ).

RESULTS

There was high correlation between MLD and LV (r=0.77-0.81), with comparable AUCs for MLD and LV in the identification of csPCA in the WP (0.73, 0.72), PZ (0.73, 0.73), and TZ (0.79, 0.75). Optimal MLD thresholds were 1.4, 1.4, and 1.6 cm in the WP, PZ, and TZ respectively, with PPVs of 76%, 81%, and 69%, respectively. An MLD threshold of 2.7 cm would be needed in the WP to achieve a PPV approaching 90%, with sensitivity decreasing to 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high correlation between MLD and LV with comparable discrimination of csPCA using each. PIRADSv2's 1.5 cm MLD threshold is near the optimal threshold for PIRADS 5 upgrade but has moderate PPV. A much higher threshold would be needed to increase its PPV, with significant sacrifice in sensitivity.

Reconciling discordance between PI-RADS 4 lesions and targeted biopsy: Early experience of a multidisciplinary quality improvement protocol with PI-RADS 4 subcategorization

PURPOSE

PI-RADS 4 lesions are considered to have a "high" likelihood of clinically-significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, patients undergoing targeted biopsy have a range of histologic findings. Understanding discordant cases is critical to improve diagnostic accuracy and inform subsequent management. We studied early findings from implementation of a multidisciplinary Quality Improvement (QI) protocol for reconciling discordance and evaluate the potential heterogeneity of PI-RADS 4.

METHODS

Patients with mpMRI PI-RADS 4 lesions undergoing fusion-targeted biopsy from January 2017 to May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The discordant targeted biopsy pathology (benign/GG1) was evaluated utilizing a QI protocol and all lesions were subcategorized based on ADC values. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) for PI-RADS 4 lesions overall and the Cancer Detection Rate (CDR) for subcategorized lesions were calculated.

RESULTS

248 patients with 286 lesions were reviewed. Prior to re-review, PI-RADS 4 PPV for ≥ GG1 and ≥ GG2 lesions were 0.55 and 0.34, increasing to 0.67 and 0.43 following reconciliation. Lesion subcategorization based on ADC value as higher suspicion (4+) and lower suspicion (4-) resulted in 158 and 117 lesions, with reverse-fusion analysis revealing that 61% and 17% of lesions contained csPCa, respectively. Subgroup analysis among PI-RADS 4+ lesions led to an increase in the CDR to 75% and 61% for ≥ GG1 and ≥ GG2.

CONCLUSION

Use of multidisciplinary QI protocol to review discordance cases of PI-RADS 4 improves diagnostic accuracy and guides subsequent management. Our findings highlight the known heterogeneity of this category with reference to csPCa CDR, suggesting the potential value of PI-RADS 4 subcategorization.

Reconciling Discordance Between Prostate Biopsy Histology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Suspicion - Implementation of a Quality Improvement Protocol of Imaging Re-review and Reverse-fusion Target Analysis

There is uncertainty with how to proceed when targeted prostate biopsy of suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) lesions return without clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). While possible, there are error sources that could contribute to such discordance including the mpMRI read, mpMRI-ultrasound fusion, biopsy technique, and histologic classification. Consequences are potentially significant; mistakenly missing csPCa can lead to delays in curative treatment. Conversely, in cases of incorrect mpMRI interpretation, the patient may be subjected to unnecessary workup/burden. At our institution, we implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative triggered after a discordant case occurs. This multidisciplinary review process incorporates mpMRI re-review and assessment of accurate lesion-sampling, termed "reverse-fusion." Herein, we describe the protocol, present sample cases, and discuss clinical implications.