Faculty Bibliography

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become integral to diagnosing and managing patients with suspected or confirmed prostate cancer. However, the benefits of utilizing MRI can be hindered by quality issues during imaging acquisition, interpretation, and reporting. As the utilization of prostate MRI continues to increase in clinical practice, the variability in MRI quality and how it can negatively impact patient care have become apparent. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized this challenge and developed several initiatives to address the issue of inconsistent MRI quality and ensure that imaging centers deliver high-quality patient care. These initiatives include the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), developed in collaboration with an international panel of experts and members of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), the Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative, which is part of the ACR Learning Network, the ACR Prostate Cancer MRI Center Designation, and the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. In this article, we will discuss the importance of these initiatives in establishing quality assurance and quality control programs for prostate MRI and how they can improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomic models can facilitate presurgical planning by providing surgeons with detailed knowledge of the exact location of pertinent anatomical structures. Although 3D printed anatomic models have been shown to be useful for pre-operative planning, few studies have demonstrated how these models can influence quantitative surgical metrics. OBJECTIVE:To prospectively assess whether patient-specific 3D printed prostate cancer models can improve quantitative surgical metrics in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS:Patients with MRI-visible prostate cancer (PI-RADS V2 ≥ 3) scheduled to undergo RARP were prospectively enrolled in our IRB approved study (n = 82). Quantitative surgical metrics included the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs), operative times, and blood loss. A qualitative Likert scale survey to assess understanding of anatomy and confidence regarding surgical approach was also implemented. RESULTS:The rate of PSMs was lower for the 3D printed model group (8.11%) compared to that with imaging only (28.6%), p = 0.128. The 3D printed model group had a 9-min reduction in operating time (213 ± 42 min vs. 222 ± 47 min) and a 5 mL reduction in average blood loss (227 ± 148 mL vs. 232 ± 114 mL). Surgeon anatomical understanding and confidence improved after reviewing the 3D printed models (3.60 ± 0.74 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.62 and 3.86 ± 0.53 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS:3D printed prostate cancer models can positively impact quantitative patient outcomes such as PSMs, operative times, and blood loss in patients undergoing RARP.