Georg Salomon

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of coaxial transthoracic needle biopsy (TNB) with use of a 20-gauge automated cutting biopsy needle in the diagnosis of thoracic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in 122 patients. Computed tomography was used to guide coaxial TNB, which was performed with aspirating (n = 87) and automated cutting (n = 99) needles. The sensitivities for malignant and benign lesions were determined, with a comparison of the relative yields from the two techniques. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic yield for coaxial TNB was 88%. For malignancy the sensitivity was 95%, whereas a specific benign diagnosis was obtained in 91%. Although no difference was found for fine-needle aspiration versus core biopsy of malignant lesions (92% vs 86%), a statistically significant difference was found for benign lesions (44% vs 100%, P<.05). Pneumothorax occurred in 54%. CONCLUSION: Coaxial TNB performed with an automated cutting needle helps provide a diagnosis in the majority of patients with focal chest disease and is particularly useful in the diagnosis of benign lesions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.