Scholarlink

Objectives <p>The prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol changed from a contrast multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) to a non-contrast biparametric (bp-MRI) protocol at a single centre. This study describes the recall rate, median time to recall, and PI-RADS distribution pre-/post-implementation.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective descriptive study involved a consecutive sample of all 3 Tesla (3T) prostate bp-MRIs following the protocol change (01April2023-23May2024) to determine the proportion of bp-MRIs recalled, the indications for recall, and the median time until recall MRI (Part 1). A subset of these prostate MRIs was compared to a consecutive sample immediately prior to the change in protocol to compare the distribution of PI-RADS categories (Part 2). The distribution of MRI reporting frequency by radiologists was compared pre-/post-implementation (Part 2). Inclusion criteria: 3T bp-MRI protocol, out-patient, male, and ≥ 18 years of age.</p> Results <p>A total of 554 prostate bp-MRIs took place during the study period, 547 (96.8%) were included. Of the 547 subjects, 36 (6.6%) were recalled for intravenous (IV) contrast. Most recalls were for PI-RADS 3 reassessment (33/36, 91.7%). PI-RADS categories were upgraded from 3 to 4 in 16/33 (48.5%) subjects. The median time between initial and recall MRI was 35 days. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of PI-RADS categories before (<i>n</i> = 225) and after (<i>n</i> = 225) implementation of the bp-MRI protocol (X<sup>2</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of MRI reporting frequency by radiologists pre-/post-implementation (X<sup>2</sup>, <i>p</i> = 0.06).</p> Conclusion <p>A small proportion (6.6%) of bp-MRI subjects were recalled for contrast reassessment and the majority of those (91.7%) were for PI-RADS 3 reassessment. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of PI-RADS categories following implementation of the bp-MRI protocol. Implementation of a bp-MRI protocol at a single centre reduced patient exposure to IV contrast while not changing PI-RADS distribution.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Implementation of a biparametric prostate MRI protocol with a recall system for intravenous contrast: an analysis of recall rates and comparison of PI-RADS category distribution

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月9日

查看全文
  • John-David Brown,
  • Jennifer Payne,
  • Sharon E. Clarke

摘要

Objectives

The prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol changed from a contrast multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) to a non-contrast biparametric (bp-MRI) protocol at a single centre. This study describes the recall rate, median time to recall, and PI-RADS distribution pre-/post-implementation.

Methods

This retrospective descriptive study involved a consecutive sample of all 3 Tesla (3T) prostate bp-MRIs following the protocol change (01April2023-23May2024) to determine the proportion of bp-MRIs recalled, the indications for recall, and the median time until recall MRI (Part 1). A subset of these prostate MRIs was compared to a consecutive sample immediately prior to the change in protocol to compare the distribution of PI-RADS categories (Part 2). The distribution of MRI reporting frequency by radiologists was compared pre-/post-implementation (Part 2). Inclusion criteria: 3T bp-MRI protocol, out-patient, male, and ≥ 18 years of age.

Results

A total of 554 prostate bp-MRIs took place during the study period, 547 (96.8%) were included. Of the 547 subjects, 36 (6.6%) were recalled for intravenous (IV) contrast. Most recalls were for PI-RADS 3 reassessment (33/36, 91.7%). PI-RADS categories were upgraded from 3 to 4 in 16/33 (48.5%) subjects. The median time between initial and recall MRI was 35 days. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of PI-RADS categories before (n = 225) and after (n = 225) implementation of the bp-MRI protocol (X2, p = 0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of MRI reporting frequency by radiologists pre-/post-implementation (X2, p = 0.06).

Conclusion

A small proportion (6.6%) of bp-MRI subjects were recalled for contrast reassessment and the majority of those (91.7%) were for PI-RADS 3 reassessment. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of PI-RADS categories following implementation of the bp-MRI protocol. Implementation of a bp-MRI protocol at a single centre reduced patient exposure to IV contrast while not changing PI-RADS distribution.