Skip to main content
. 2016 May-Jun;42(3):464–471. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0235

Table 2. Survey Responses.

There is adequate evidence supporting the use of MP-MRI to manage localized prostate cancer. Total = 272
Agree 114 (42%)
Disagree 84 (31%)
Can not decide 74 (27%)

Access to MP-MRI limits my ability to use it in my practice. Total = 268

Agree/Strongly agree 192 (72%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 76 (28%)

The high cost of MP-MRI is prohibitive for its use. Total = 263

Agree/Strongly agree 156 (59%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 107 (41%)

MR-MPI guided biopsies are utilized in my practice. Total = 270

Agree 91 (34%)
Disagree 179 (66%)

MP-MRI is helpful in patients with elevated PSA/abnormal prostate exam prior to biopsy. Total = 270

Agree/Strongly agree 102 (38%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 168 (62%)

MP-MRI is helpful in patients with negative biopsy and abnormal PSA/prostate exam. Total = 225

Agree/Strongly agree 88 (39%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 137 (61%)

MP-MRI is useful prior to definitive treatment with prostatectomy or radiation. Total = 225

Agree/Strongly agree 32 (14%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 193 (86%)

MP-MRI changes my treatment approach of intermediate/high risk prostate cancer. Total = 253

Sometimes/often 66 (26%)
Rarely/never 187 (74%)

MP-MRI should be used in all patients for active surveillance. Total = 276

Agree/Strongly agree 69 (25%)
Disagree/Strongly disagree 207 (75%)

How often do MP-MRI guided biopsies turn out to be positive? Total = 233

Often/Very often 65 (28%)
Sometimes 77 (33%)
Rarely/Never 91 (39%)

How closely do MP-MRI results correlate with final pathology after prostatectomy? Total = 233

Strong correlation 26 (11%)
Moderate correlation 145 (62%)
Weak correlation 46 (20%)
No correlation 16 (7%)