The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the roles of self-directed learning and continual feedback in the learning curve for tumor detection by novice readers of prostate MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 124 prostate MRI examinations classified as positive (n = 52; single Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] category 3 or higher lesion showing Gleason score ≥ 7 tumor at MRI-targeted biopsy) or negative (n = 72; PI-RADS category 2 or lower and negative biopsy) for detectable tumor were included. These were divided into four equal-sized batches, each with matching numbers of positive and negative examinations. Six second-year radiology residents reviewed examinations to localize tumors. Three of the six readers received feedback after each examination showing the preceding case's solution. The learning curve, plotting accuracy over time, was assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Logistic regression and mixed-model ANOVA were performed. RESULTS For readers with and without feedback, the learning curve exhibited an initial rapid improvement that slowed after 40 examinations (change in AIC > 0.2%). Accuracy improved from 58.1% (batch 1) to 71.0-75.3% (batches 2-4) without feedback and from 58.1% to 72.0-77.4% with feedback (p = 0.027-0.046), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.800). Specificity improved from 53.7% to 68.5-81.5% without feedback and from 55.6% to 74.1-81.5% with feedback (p = 0.006-0.010), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.891). Sensitivity improved from 59.0-61.5% (batches 1-2) to 71.8-76.9% (batches 3-4) with feedback (p = 0.052), though did not improve without feedback (p = 0.602). Sensitivity for transition zone tumors exhibited larger changes (p = 0.024) with feedback than without feedback. Sensitivity for peripheral zone tumors did not improve in either group (p > 0.3). Reader confidence increased only with feedback (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION The learning curve in prostate tumor detection largely reflected self-directed learning. Continual feedback had a lesser effect. Clinical prostate MRI interpretation by novice radiologists warrants caution.

[1]  Justin M Ream,et al.  Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI of the prostate: An intraindividual assessment of the effect of temporal resolution on qualitative detection and quantitative analysis of histopathologically proven prostate cancer , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12‐core biopsy results , 2016, BJU international.

[3]  J. Babb,et al.  Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: Assessment at an optimal threshold , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  Adam T Froemming,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. , 2016, Radiology.

[5]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Relationship Between Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Biopsy Indication, and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes. , 2016, European urology.

[6]  Tristan Barrett,et al.  Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI‐transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion‐guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool , 2016, BJU international.

[7]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[8]  H. Hricak,et al.  Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference , 2016, European Radiology.

[9]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. , 2015, Urology.

[10]  S. Taneja,et al.  Using multiparametric MRI to ‘personalize’ biopsy for men , 2015, Current opinion in urology.

[11]  G. Ekinci,et al.  Utility of Interobserver Agreement Statistics in Establishing Radiology Resident Learning Curves During Self-directed Radiologic Anatomy Training. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[12]  J. Babb,et al.  Does normalisation improve the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for prostate cancer assessment? A blinded independent-observer evaluation. , 2015, Clinical radiology.

[13]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Implementation of Multi-parametric Prostate MRI in Clinical Practice , 2015, Current Urology Reports.

[14]  Li Feng,et al.  Dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI of the prostate with high spatiotemporal resolution using compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and continuous golden‐angle radial sampling: Preliminary experience , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  How "consistent" is "consistent"? A clinician-based assessment of the reliability of expressions used by radiologists to communicate diagnostic confidence. , 2014, Clinical radiology.

[17]  Carrie M. Rochman,et al.  A milestone-based approach to breast imaging instruction for residents. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[18]  M. Stifelman,et al.  MP67-14 PREDICTIVE VALUE OF NEGATIVE 3T MULTIPARAMETRIC PROSTATE MRI ON 12 CORE BIOPSY RESULTS , 2014 .

[19]  Kingshuk Roy Choudhury,et al.  Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis , 2014, Abdominal Imaging.

[20]  Hersh Chandarana,et al.  Computed diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T: impact on image quality and tumour detection , 2013, European Radiology.

[21]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[22]  M. Boermeester,et al.  Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, Radiology.

[23]  Boris Bodelle,et al.  MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[24]  J. Scheidler,et al.  Diagnosis Of Prostate Cancer In Patients With Persistently Elevated PSA And Tumor-Negative Biopsy in Ambulatory Care: Performance of MR Imaging in a Multi-Reader Environment , 2012, Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren.

[25]  Jaap Stoker,et al.  Evaluation of a Standardized CT Colonography Training Program for Novice Readers 1 , 2010 .

[26]  H. Hricak,et al.  Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer , 2010, European Radiology.

[27]  Hashim Uddin Ahmed,et al.  The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  A. Costello,et al.  ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING STAGING OF PROSTATE CANCER , 2007, ANZ journal of surgery.

[29]  Jonathan L Wright,et al.  Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? , 2007, The Canadian journal of urology.

[30]  A K Dixon,et al.  Communication of doubt and certainty in radiological reports. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[31]  R Alagappan,et al.  Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. , 1997, Radiology.

[32]  C. Tempany MR staging of prostate cancer. How we can improve our accuracy with decisions aids and optimal techniques. , 1996, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[33]  A. Schned,et al.  Staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: lessons from a learning curve. , 1995, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.