ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. METHODS: A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.
ABSTRACT
Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
ABSTRACT
The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations were published in 2016 to standardize the reporting of MRI examinations performed to assess for disease progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Although a limited number of studies have reported outcomes from use of PRECISE in clinical practice, the available studies have demonstrated PRECISE to have high pooled NPV but low pooled PPV for predicting progression. Our experience in using PRECISE in clinical practice at two teaching hospitals has highlighted issues with its application and areas requiring clarification. This Clinical Perspective critically appraises PRECISE on the basis of this experience, focusing on the system's key advantages and disadvantages and exploring potential changes to improve the system's utility. These changes include consideration of image quality when applying PRECISE scoring, incorporation of quantitative thresholds for disease progression, adoption of a PRECISE 3F sub-category for progression not qualifying as substantial, and comparisons with both the baseline and most recent prior examinations. Items requiring clarification include derivation of a patient-level score in patients with multiple lesions, intended application of PRECISE score 5 (i.e., if requiring development of disease that is no longer organ-confined), and categorization of new lesions in patients with prior MRI-invisible disease.
ABSTRACT
This systematic review investigated the added value of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI)-guidance in epilepsy surgery, compared to conventional non-iMRI surgery, with respect to the rate of gross total resection (GTR), postoperative seizure freedom, neurological deficits, non-neurological complications and reoperations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Reviews databases. Randomized control trials, case control or cohort studies, and surgical case series published from January 1993 to February 2021 that reported on iMRI-guided epilepsy surgery outcomes for either adults or children were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing iMRI-guided epilepsy surgery to non-iMRI surgery controls were selected for meta-analysis using random-effects models. Forty-two studies matched the selection criteria and were used for qualitative synthesis and ten of these were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, studies included various 0.2-3.0 Tesla iMRI systems, contained small numbers with heterogenous clinical characteristics, utilized subjective GTR reporting, and had variable follow-up durations. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of iMRI-guidance led to statistically significant higher rates of GTR (RR = 1.31 [95% CI = 1.10-1.57]) and seizure freedom (RR = 1.44 [95% CI = 1.12-1.84]), but this was undermined by moderate to significant statistical heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 55% and I2 = 71% respectively). Currently, there is only level III-2 evidence supporting the use of iMRI-guidance over conventional non-iMRI epilepsy surgery, with respect to the studied outcomes.
