Skip to main content
Insights into Imaging
Download PDF
  • Original Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Interactive training workshop to improve prostate mpMRI knowledge: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship

Insights into Imaging volume 15, Article number: 27 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate MRI is established for the investigation of patients presenting with suspected early prostate cancer. Outcomes are dependent on both image quality and interpretation. This study assessed the impact of an educational intervention on participants’ theoretical knowledge of the technique.

Methods

Eighty-one clinicians from two centers with varying experience in prostate MRI participated. Baseline knowledge was assessed with 10 written and image-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) prior to a course including didactic lectures and hands-on interactive workshops on prostate MRI interpretation. Post-course, participants completed a second 10-question MCQ test, matched by format, themes, and difficulty, to assess for any improvement in knowledge and performance. Results were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data.

Results

Thirty-nine participants, including 25/49 (51.0%) and 14/32 (43.8%) at each center completed both assessments, with their results used for subsequent evaluation. Overall, there was a significant improvement from pre- (4.92 ± 2.41) to post-course scores (6.77 ± 1.46), p < 0.001 and at both Copenhagen (5.92 ± 2.25 to 7.36 ± 1.25) and Toronto (3.14 ± 1.51 to 5.71 ± 1.20); p = 0.005 and p = 0.002, respectively. Participants with no prostate MRI experience showed the greatest improvement (3.77 ± 1.97 to 6.18 ± 1.5, p < 0.001), followed by intermediate level (< 500 MRIs reported) experience (6.18 ± 1.99 to 7.46 ± 1.13, p = 0.058), then advanced (> 500 MRIs reported) experience (6.83 ± 2.48 to 7.67 ± 0.82, p = 0.339).

Conclusions

A dedicated prostate MRI teaching course combining didactic lectures and hands-on workshops significantly improved short-term theoretical knowledge of the technique for clinicians with differing levels of experience.

Critical relevance statement

A dedicated teaching course significantly improved theoretical knowledge of the technique particularly for clinicians with less reporting experience and a lower baseline knowledge. The multiple-choice questions format mapped improved performance and may be considered as part of future MRI certification initiatives.

Key points

• Prostate MRI knowledge is important for image interpretation and optimizing acquisition sequences.

• A dedicated teaching course significantly improved theoretical knowledge of the technique.

• Improved performance was more apparent in clinicians with less reporting experience and a lower baseline knowledge.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second commonest male cancer worldwide, with the incidence expected to increase by more than 50% by 2035 [1, 2]. MRI is now established as the initial diagnostic investigation of choice for patients presenting with suspected localized or locally advanced prostate cancer [3, 4], with improved outcomes demonstrated compared to the previous standard-of-care transrectal systematic biopsy [5,6,7,8]. The high demand for the technique necessitates that MRI be performed and reported in all healthcare settings.

The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines aim to standardize both MRI acquisition and reporting [9], with patient-level outcomes being highly dependent on both image quality [10] and reader experience [11]. However, compliance to PI-RADS acquisition recommendations does not guarantee high quality [12, 13] and theoretical and practical knowledge are essential in order to adapt sequence parameters and ensure optimization [14, 15]. Moreover, despite the widespread adoption of the PI-RADS guidelines, there remains high inter-observer variability, even amongst expert readers [16, 17]. There is a known learning curve for prostate MRI interpretation [18], with clinical outcomes directly correlating to reader experience [19, 20], and with participation in dedicated training programmes being shown to improve reader performance [21,22,23].

The Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis Teaching Fellowship, established by the European School of Radiology (ESOR), is aimed at clinical and academic radiologists who wish to enhance their skills by delivering lectures and undertaking interactive workshops in a foreign environment. For the year 2022, the fellowship recipient (T.B.) is a subspecialist uro-radiologist who conducted prostate MRI teaching sessions at two separate centers in Denmark and Canada. The outcome of this dedicated training programme is presented, aiming to map the improvement in theoretical prostate MRI knowledge of participants from a variety of training backgrounds and with differing levels of experience.

Methods

Participants

The first teaching fellowship took place at Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, on August 22–23, 2022, and the second at Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, Canada, on November 9, 2022. In both centers, the teaching was offered in a hybrid format, with the majority attending in person and with online participants all from the same respective country. In total, 81 participated, with 49 in Copenhagen and 32 in Toronto.

Hands-on workshop

Participants attended a prostate MRI workshop which included dedicated lectures and interactive cases, curated into themes based around the delivered talks. Workshops lasted up to 90 min, with access to the cases provided via a health technology company, Collective Minds™ (Stockholm, Sweden). Collective Minds™ provided a virtual classroom to host the lecturer's clinical prostate mpMRI cases, allowing course attendees to concurrently scroll and review studies. Participants were granted access to the cases 3 days before and 4 days after the workshops. Lectures were 10–15 min in length and covered core topics, including “Prostate MRI interpretation”, “Pitfalls in prostate MRI”, “Biparametric versus Multiparametric MRI” and “Quality Control within the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway” (Supplemental Data 1).

Evaluation

Participants were asked to complete a brief pre-course questionnaire to record their current position and details of their prior prostate MRI experience. Within each group, there was mixed prostate MRI reporting experience, which was generally higher in the Copenhagen compared to the Toronto cohort (Table 1, Supplemental Data 2), with the latter course being mainly advertised to radiology fellows and residents.

Table 1 Baseline career and prostate MRI reader experience within the cohorts
Full size table

In advance of the educational intervention, attendees were asked to take an assessment to evaluate their baseline prostate mpMRI knowledge. This assessment consisted of 10 multiple choice questions (MCQs), 6 written and 4 based on static prostate MR images (Supplemental data 3). In total 30/49 (61.2%) and 25/32 (78.1%) of participants completed the baseline assessment in Copenhagen and Toronto, respectively. Twenty-four hours after completion of the workshops a second assessment was made available to evaluate any improvement in knowledge and performance (Supplemental data 4). This was matched to the first in terms of number of written (6) and image-based (4) MCQs, difficulty level (easy = 2, intermediate = 5, hard = 3), and approximate themes. The test sets were curated by author T.B. in collaboration with a second author (V.L.). 25/49 (51.0%) and 14/32 (43.8%) of participants at each center completed both assessments, with their results used for subsequent evaluation. Participants who did not complete both pre- and post-course questionnaires were excluded from analysis, including one participant who only completed assessment 2.

The participants were categorized into three groups based on their experience level in independent prostate mpMRI reporting: beginner (with no prior experience in independent prostate mpMRI reporting), intermediate (with less than 500 mpMRI cases), and advanced (with more than 500 mpMRI cases).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted by using R 4.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The Wilcoxon rank sum test and Kruskal–Wallis test were performed for datasets with 2 and ≥ 3 groups, respectively. The Dunn test was used for post-hoc analyses when the results of the Kruskal–Wallis test reached significance. Paired data (i.e. pre- and post-course questionnaires from the same participant) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The pre-course assessment showed a mean score of 4.92 (± 2.41 SD) across 39 participants, with the post-course test demonstrating a significant improvement, with a mean score of 6.77 (± 1.46), p < 0.001 (Table 2, Supplemental data 5).

Table 2 Scores from pre- and post-course tests, reported as mean ± SD
Full size table

Amongst the participants from Copenhagen, the pre-course test revealed a mean score of 5.92 (± 2.25), which significantly increased to 7.36 (± 1.25) post-course, p = 0.005. For participants from Toronto, the mean pre-course score was 3.14 (± 1.51), and the mean post-course score 5.71 (± 1.20) p = 0.002, Table 2. Further analyses were performed to compare scores between the two cities. The pre-course scores from Copenhagen were significantly higher than Toronto (p < 0.001). Similarly, the post-course scores from Copenhagen were significantly higher than Toronto (p < 0.001). Significant improvements between the pre- and post-course scores were observed for both cities (Copenhagen: p = 0.005, Toronto: p = 0.002); Fig. 1. However, when directly comparing the post-course scores to the pre-course scores between Copenhagen and Toronto, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.090).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Box plot illustrating the distribution of scores from pre- and post-course tests for participants in each center

Full size image

Separately, the pre- and post-course scores were analyzed based on participants’ experience levels. Significant differences were observed amongst experience groups (beginner, intermediate, and advanced) in both pre-test and post-test conditions (Supplemental Fig. 6). Pairwise comparisons revealed that, in pre-test scores, beginners scored significantly lower compared to both intermediate and advanced groups. This trend persisted in post-test scores. Amongst the 22 participants categorized as beginners, there was a significant increase in mean scores from 3.77 (± 1.97) at the pre-course assessment to 6.18 (± 1.5) at the post-course assessment, p < 0.001. The Intermediate experience group (n = 11) showed a moderate increase in the mean score from 6.18 (± 1.99) in the pre-course test to 7.46 (± 1.13) in the post-course test, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.058). In the advanced group (n = 6), the participants demonstrated a slight but non-significant improvement in scores from the pre-course test (6.83 ± 2.48) to the post-course test (7.67 ± 0.82), p = 0.339 (Table 3).

Table 3 Scores from pre- and post-course tests categorized by participants’ experience, reported as mean ± SD
Full size table

Discussion

This study investigated the effect of a dedicated prostate MRI training programme incorporating didactic lectures and interactive cases, demonstrating a significant improvement in knowledge of the technique amongst clinicians from two separate healthcare systems, and with differing baseline levels of experiences. The findings highlight the effectiveness of the course in improving scores for all participants and within each center. While significant differences were observed between the centers in terms of pre-course and post-course scores, the impact did not significantly differ between the Copenhagen and Toronto cohorts.

Interpretation of prostate MRI is challenging, following a known learning curve; a recent ESUR consensus group suggested that > 1000 studies should be read to achieve the level of an expert [24]. It has previously been shown that dedicated teaching courses improve reader performance in MRI for both radiologists and urologists [21,22,23]. Formats have varied, but they typically include a mixture of didactic lectures and case-based teaching with feedback on image interpretation, delivered over periods as short as 2 days [23], or up to 20 weeks [21].

Certification has been proposed as a means of benchmarking the requirements for independent prostate MRI reporting [25,26,27,28]. Such a qualification could be multifaceted, incorporating a logbook of cases, peer-learning, course participation, continuing medical education credits, and pathology feedback [26]. Some of these components were included within the current training programme. A potential examination format has been proposed as either an online MRI case-based interpretation or a mixture of written and image-based multiple choice questions [26]. We tested the latter and importantly matched the question sets in terms of topic, format, and difficulty, to help map improvement in theoretical knowledge following educational workshops. The significant differences between the score for experience levels pre- and post-course imply that such testing may help to differentiate knowledge as part of a certification process; however, we aimed to evaluate learning, and it should be noted that certification itself does not directly equate to knowledge and experience, nor indeed to competence. Although the group mean scores (out of 10) may appear modest, even after the teaching intervention (7.36 at Copenhagen and 5.71 at Toronto, respectively), the questions were deliberately set to be challenging to avoid a “ceiling effect” where resultant high scores on the baseline questions would limit the scope to map any improvement. It was notable that the Toronto cohort scored lower overall on baseline testing, likely reflect the relatively lower a priori prostate MRI reading experience within this group. Notably, there was a statistical difference between beginner versus the intermediate and experience level groups at both baseline and post-course, implying that such testing may be able to differentiate candidate knowledge. It was also apparent that readers with beginner-level experience showed a larger and statistically significant increase in scoring compared to those with intermediate or advanced-level experience (which did not reach significance), suggesting a greater scope for improvement in performance, however, this would need to be confirmed by further testing in more closely matched cohort studies.

This study has several limitations, including the relatively small number of participants and the relatively low number of multiple-choice questions assessed, to balance the breadth of knowledge covered and the time burden for completion. Not all attendees completed both the baseline and post-course testing, which may have led to a selection bias within and between centers, however, the response rate was generally comparable to other studies in the field [29, 30] and was overall relatively similar between the two centers (51.0% and 43.8%). The question sets were matched for topic and difficulty, however, there remains potential for mismatch and randomization of the assessment order between candidates may have been more appropriate. Participants were not tested on full prostate mpMRI datasets, however, the format employed has been suggested as a practical approach for examinations within prospective certification programmes [26], and this pilot shows the potential for the MCQ format to map improvements in theoretical prostate MRI knowledge. Finally, the post-course questions were available for completion shortly after the applied learning event, and no follow-up testing was performed to evaluate for longer-term retained knowledge; this is an area for future work.

In conclusion, this study shows that a dedicated prostate mpMRI teaching course combining didactic lectures and practical workshops can improve the theoretical knowledge of the technique for clinicians with differing levels of experience, and provides evidence that a multiple-choice question format can be employed as an assessment tool for this purpose.

Availability of data and materials

Further information is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ESOR:

European School of Radiology

ESUR:

European Society of Urogenital Radiology

MCQ:

Multiple-choice questions

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PI-RADS:

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smittenaar CR, Petersen KA, Stewart K, Moitt N (2016) Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035. Br J Cancer 115:1147. https://doi.org/10.1038/BJC.2016.304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S et al (2020) Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 203:706–712. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1801993

  7. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barrett T, Slough R, Sushentsev N et al (2019) Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways. Clin Radiol 74:894.e1-894.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett T, de Rooij M, Giganti F, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Padhani AR (2023) Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat Rev Urol 20:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41585-022-00648-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, et al. (2020) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Radiology 296:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020190646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burn PR, Freeman SJ, Andreou A, Burns-Cox N, Persad R, Barrett T (2019) A multicentre assessment of prostate MRI quality and compliance with UK and international standards. Clin Radiol 74:894.e19-894.e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.03.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sackett J, Shih JH, Reese SE et al (2021) Quality of prostate MRI: is the PI-RADS standard sufficient? Acad Radiol 28:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.01.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Leest M, Israël B, Engels RRM, Barentsz JO (2020) Reply to Arnaldo Stanzione, Massimo Imbriaco, and Renato Cuocolo’s Letter to the Editor re: Marloes van der Leest, Bas Israël, Eric Bastiaan Cornel, et al. High diagnostic performance of short magnetic resonance imaging protocols for prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naïve men: the next step in magnetic resonance imaging accessibility. Eur Urol 2019;76:574–81. Are we meeting our standards? Stringent prostate imaging reporting and data system acquisition requirements might be limiting prostate accessibility. Eur Urol 77:e58–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.016

  15. Papoutsaki MV, Allen C, Giganti F et al (2021) Standardisation of prostate multiparametric MRI across a hospital network: a London experience. Insights Imaging 12:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-00990-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith CP, Harmon SA, Barrett T et al (2019) Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:1694–1703. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Urase Y, Ueno Y, Tamada T et al (2021) Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 20201434. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201434

  18. Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS, Porter CR et al (2007) Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 14:3429–3434

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N et al (2019) Interreader variability of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20536

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G et al (2019) Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol (NY) 44:1883–1893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H (2010) Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 20:995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1625-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D et al (2017) The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:W92-100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kasivisvanathan V, Ambrosi A, Giganti F et al (2019) A dedicated prostate MRI teaching course improves the ability of the urologist to interpret clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI. Eur Urol 75:203–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2018.09.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Rooij M, Israël B, Barrett T et al (2020) Focus on the quality of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: synopsis of the ESUR/ESUI recommendations on quality assessment and interpretation of images and radiologists’ training. Eur Urol 78:483–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M et al (2020) ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol 30:5404–5416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Barrett T, Padhani AR, Patel A et al (2021) Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int 127:304–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Certification | Uroradiology and urogenital diagnostics working group n.d. https://www.ag-uro.drg.de/de-DE/4285/zertifizierung/. Accessed 11 Feb 2022

  28. Tan N, Lakshmi M, Hernandez D, Scuderi A (2020) Upcoming American College of Radiology prostate MRI designation launching: what to expect. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:4109–4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02725-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bukavina L, Tilburt JC, Konety B et al (2020) Perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy of radiation oncologists and urologists for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from a national survey. Eur Urol Focus 6:273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sushentsev N, Barrett T, Warren AY, Gnanapragasam VJ (2022) How and when should radiologists report T-staging on MRI in patients with prostate cancer? BJU Int 130:434–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.15824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Professor Valérie Vilgrain (ESOR Scientific / Educational Director), Ms. Brigitte Lindlbauer (ESOR Administrative Director), Mrs. Isabella Davicino (ESOR Scholarship/Fellowship Coordinator) and the whole ESOR team for their support.

Funding

This study received funding by the European School of Radiology (ESOR) 2022 Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK

    Tristan Barrett & Kang-Lung Lee

  2. Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kang-Lung Lee

  3. School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kang-Lung Lee

  4. Collective Minds Radiology AB, 182 33, Danderyd, Sweden

    Fredrik Illerstam

  5. Department of Radiology, Herlev Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

    Henrik S. Thomsen & Vibeke Løgager

  6. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Ave, 3-957, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Kartik S. Jhaveri

Authors
  1. Tristan Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kang-Lung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fredrik Illerstam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henrik S. Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kartik S. Jhaveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vibeke Løgager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TB conceived the study. KLL performed the statistical analysis. All authors contributed either to data acquisition or draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tristan Barrett.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The need for informed consent for data analysis was waived by the local Ethics Committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

TB research was supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Center (NIHR203312). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. TB also acknowledges support from Cancer Research UK (Cambridge Imaging Center grant number C197/A16465), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Imaging Center in Cambridge and Manchester, and the Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Center.

FI is an employee of Collective Minds Radiology; use of the Collective Minds Radiology platform was provided free of charge.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barrett, T., Lee, KL., Illerstam, F. et al. Interactive training workshop to improve prostate mpMRI knowledge: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship. Insights Imaging 15, 27 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01574-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01574-8

Keywords