Index lesion contouring on prostate MRI for targeted MRI/US fusion biopsy – Evaluation of mismatch between radiologists and urologists. Issue 162 (May 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghafoor, Soleen; Steinebrunner, Florian; Stocker, Daniel; Hötker, Andreas M.; Schmid, Florian A.; Eberli, Daniel; Donati, Olivio F.
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 162(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-05
• Subjects: Prostate -- Magnetic resonance imaging -- Biopsy -- Prostate cancer; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110763
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Highlights: Segmentation errors of focal index lesions can affect targeted prostate biopsies. There is substantial disagreement of lesion segmentations between urologists and radiologists. Reproducibility of segmentations improves between radiologists but remains only moderate. Knowledge of this segmentation mismatch encourages the potential use of perilesional biopsy. Abstract: Purpose: Mistargeting of focal lesions due to inaccurate segmentations can lead to false-negative findings on MRI-guided targeted biopsies. The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine inter-reader agreement of prostate index lesion segmentations from actual biopsy data between urologists and radiologists. Method: Consecutive patients undergoing transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy for PI-RADS 3–5 lesions between January 2020 and December 2021 were included. Agreement between segmentations on T2w-images between urologists and radiologists was assessed with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95 % Hausdorff distance (95 % HD). Differences in similarity scores were compared using Wilcoxon test. Differences depending on lesion features (size, zonal location, PI-RADS scores, lesion distinctness) were tested with Mann-Whitney U test. Correlation with prostate signal-intensity homogeneity score (PSHS) and lesion size was tested with Spearman's rank correlation. Results: Ninety-three patients (mean age 64.9 ± 7.1y, median serum PSA 6.5 [4.33–10.00]) were included. Mean similarity scores were statistically significantly lower between urologists and radiologists compared to radiologists only (DSC 0.41 ± 0.24 vs. 0.59 ± 0.23, p < 0.01; 95 %HD 6.38 ± 5.45 mm vs. 4.47 ± 4.12 mm, p < 0.01). There was a moderate and strong positive correlation between DSC scores and lesion size for segmentations from urologists and radiologists (ρ = 0.331, p = 0.002) and radiologists only (ρ = 0.501, p < 0.001). Similarity scores were worse in lesions ≤ 10 mm while other lesion features did not significantly influence similarity scores. Conclusion: There is significant mismatch of prostate index lesion segmentations between urologists and radiologists. Segmentation agreement positively correlates with lesion size. PI-RADS scores, zonal location, lesion distinctness, and PSHS show no significant impact on segmentation agreement. These findings could underpin benefits of perilesional biopsies.