Download PDF
Rofo
DOI: 10.1055/a-2416-1343
Urogenital Tract

Evaluation of the current status, significance, and availability of prostate MRI und MRI guided biopsy in Germany

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tim Ullrich
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Matthias Boschheidgen
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Caroline Marie Schweyen
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Tobias Franiel
2   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN39065)
,
Birte Valentin 
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Michael Quentin
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Dirk Blondin
3   Department of Radiology, Vascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Städtische Kliniken Mönchengladbach GmbH, Mönchengladbach, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN235584)
,
Sascha Kaufmann
4   Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Siloah St. Trudpert Klinikum, Pforzheim, Germany
,
Alexandra Ljimani 
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Jan Philipp Radtke
5   Department of Urology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Peter Albers
5   Department of Urology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Gerald Antoch
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
,
Lars Schimmöller 
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN9170)
6   Department of Diagnostic, Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN169393)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose

Evaluation of the current status, significance and availability of multiparametric prostate MRI and MRI-guided biopsy in Germany.

Materials and Methods

A voluntary web-based questionnaire with 26 distinct items was emailed to members of the German Radiological Society (DRG) and the Professional Association of German Radiologists (BDR). The questions referred to personal qualification, acquisition, quality, and management of prostate MRI, and assessment of the importance of the method.

Results

In total 182 questionnaires were captured from all 10 german postal regions (over 60% of the university hospitals, almost 50% of the maximum care hospitals and approx. 12% of the practices or medical service centers). 43% of the respondents had a Q1 or Q2 quality certificate from the DRG, 10% had a certificate from the BDR, respectively. The majority (90%) criticized inadequate reimbursement of the examination. In 47% MRI cases were discussed in an interdisciplinary tumor board, in 44% case discussions happened rarely, and 12% never had interdisciplinary discussions. On a scale from 0–100 (0%: low; 100%: high) the estimation of the clinical relevance of prostate MRIs received an average of 84% (± 16%) and the estimated approval by urologists was 75% (± 21%). Lacking clinical feedback (59%) and clinical information (42%) were perceived as the largest problems.

Conclusion

In this representative survey the respondents estimated multiparametric MRI of the prostate as highly diagnostic and relevant with an increased approval by urologists. There is still a perceived need for continuous professional education of the method for urologists and for more widespread coverage of fusion biopsy. Prostate MRI is currently primarily offered by high volume centers. Current challenges are particularly insufficient interdisciplinary communication and inadequate reimbursement.

Key Points

  • Prostate MRI is perceived as highly diagnostic and clinically relevant.The method is currently primarily offered by high volume centers.

  • Bigger current problems are insufficient interdisciplinary communication (e.g., clinical information, biopsy results) and inadequate reimbursement.

  • Continuous education for urologists and expanded coverage by fusion biopsy are desirable.

Citation Format

  • Ullrich T, Boschheidgen M, Schweyen CM et al. Evaluation of the current status, significance, and availability of prostate MRI und MRI guided biopsy in germany. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2416-1343

Keywords

prostate - MR-imaging - MR-diffusion/perfusion - cost-effectiveness - technical aspects - pathology

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 09 July 2024

Accepted after revision: 05 September 2024

Article published online:
07 January 2025

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.1, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. Accessed June 11, 2024 at: http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/
    PubMed
  • 2 EAU Guidelines. Ed. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan. ISBN 978–94–92671–19–6. 2023
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M. et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-1777
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R. et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Mueller-Lisse UG, Lewerich B, Mueller-Lisse UL. et al. MRI of the Prostate in Germany: Online Survey among Radiologists. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 703-711
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hötker A, Donati OF. PI-RADS 2.1 und strukturierte Befundung der Magnetresonanztomographie der Prostata [PI-RADS 2.1 and structured reporting of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate]. Radiologe 2021; 61: 802-809
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D. et al. mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 763-777
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ullrich T, Schimmöller L, Oymanns M. et al. Current Utilization and Acceptance of Multiparametric MRI in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. A Regional Survey. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190: 419-426
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Brembilla G, Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A. et al. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 3383-3392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ullrich T, Schimmöller L. Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45: 3961-3968
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M. et al. Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL): A New Quality Control Scoring System for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3: 615-619
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rooij M, Allen C, Twilt JJ. et al. PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 2024;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Giganti F, Ng A, Asif A. et al. PRIME Quality Improvement Group. Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate. Radiology 2023; 309: e231130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol 2017; 90: 192-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Moore CM, Frangou E, McCartan N. et al. Prevalence of MRI lesions in men responding to a GP-led invitation for a prostate health check: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Oncology 2023; 2: e000057
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Boschheidgen M, Schimmöller L, Kastl R. et al. MRI characteristics and oncological follow-up of patients with ISUP grade group 4 or 5 prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024; 49: 192-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Valentin B, Schimmöller L, Ullrich T. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging improves the prediction of tumor staging in localized prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46: 2751-2759
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Quentin M, Schimmöller L, Ullrich T. et al. Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging can predict prostate cancer with risk for positive surgical margins. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2022; 47: 2486-2493
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ziayee F, Schimmöller L, Boschheidgen M. et al. Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI. Clin Radiol 2024; 79: e468-e474
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Asif A, Nathan A, Ng A. et al. Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13: e070280
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tavakoli AA, Hielscher T, Badura P. et al. Contribution of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion MRI to PI-RADS for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology 2023; 306: 186-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Klingebiel M, Arsov C, Ullrich T. et al. Data on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided targeted and systematic biopsy. Data Brief 2022; 45: 108683
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ullrich T, Arsov C, Quentin M. et al. Analysis of PI-RADS 4 cases: Management recommendations for negatively biopsied patients. Eur J Radiol 2019; 113: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Klingebiel M, Arsov C, Ullrich T. et al. Reasons for missing clinically significant prostate cancer by targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2021; 137: 109587
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Görtz M, Radtke JP, Hatiboglu G. et al. The Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Strategy to Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7: 325-331
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Quentin M, Boschheidgen M, Radtke JP. et al. MRI in-bore biopsy following MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in patients with persistent suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2024; 175: 111436
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B. et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 27; 313: 390-397
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Boschheidgen M, Schimmöller L, Doerfler S. et al. Single center analysis of an advisable control interval for follow-up of patients with PI-RADS category 3 in multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 6746
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar