Search

Item does not contain fulltext, Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years +/- 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive

Item does not contain fulltext, Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years +/- 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive

Item does not contain fulltext, Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years +/- 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >/=2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive

Contains fulltext : 199964.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions. Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 >/= 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001). PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists' detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development.

Contains fulltext : 199964.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions. Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 >/= 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001). PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists' detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development.

Contains fulltext : 181825.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naive patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Contains fulltext : 181825.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naive patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Contains fulltext : 181825.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naive patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Purpose: To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. Results: Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; TargetedFT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. Conclusion: Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice. © 2016, The Author(s).

Item does not contain fulltext, To establish a consensus on the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to identify patients for focal therapy. Topics specifically not included staging of prostate cancer (PCa), but rather identifying the optimal requirements for performing MRI, and the current status of optimally performed mpMRI to a) determine focality of prostate cancer (i.e. localizing small target lesions of 0.5 cm3 and greater), b) to monitor and assess the outcome of focal ablation therapies, and c) to indentify the diagnostic advantages of new MRI methods. In addition, the need for transperineal template saturation biopsies in selecting patients for focal therapy was discussed, if a high quality mpMRI is available. In other words, can mpMRI replace the role of transperineal saturation biopsies in patient selection for focal therapy?Urological surgeons, radiologists, and basic researchers, from Europe and North America participated in a consensus meeting about the use of mpMRI in focal therapy of prostate cancer. The consensus process was face-to-face and specific clinical issues were raised and discussed with agreement sought when possible. All participants are listed among the authors.Consensus was reached on most key aspects of the meeting, however on definition of the optimal requirements for mpMRI, there was 1 dissenting voice. mpMRI is the optimum approach to achieve the objectives needed for focal therapy, if made on a high quality machine (3T with/without endorectal coil or 1.5 with endorectal coil) and judged by an experienced radiologist. Structured and standardized reporting of prostate MRI is paramount. State of the art mpMRI is capable to localize small tumors for focal therapy. State of the art mpMRI is the technique of choice for follow up of focal ablation.The present evidence for MRI in focal therapy is limited. mpMRI is not accurate enough to consistently grade tumor aggressiveness. Template guided saturation biopsies are no longer necessary when a hig

Item does not contain fulltext, To establish a consensus on the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to identify patients for focal therapy. Topics specifically not included staging of prostate cancer (PCa), but rather identifying the optimal requirements for performing MRI, and the current status of optimally performed mpMRI to a) determine focality of prostate cancer (i.e. localizing small target lesions of 0.5 cm3 and greater), b) to monitor and assess the outcome of focal ablation therapies, and c) to indentify the diagnostic advantages of new MRI methods. In addition, the need for transperineal template saturation biopsies in selecting patients for focal therapy was discussed, if a high quality mpMRI is available. In other words, can mpMRI replace the role of transperineal saturation biopsies in patient selection for focal therapy?Urological surgeons, radiologists, and basic researchers, from Europe and North America participated in a consensus meeting about the use of mpMRI in focal therapy of prostate cancer. The consensus process was face-to-face and specific clinical issues were raised and discussed with agreement sought when possible. All participants are listed among the authors.Consensus was reached on most key aspects of the meeting, however on definition of the optimal requirements for mpMRI, there was 1 dissenting voice. mpMRI is the optimum approach to achieve the objectives needed for focal therapy, if made on a high quality machine (3T with/without endorectal coil or 1.5 with endorectal coil) and judged by an experienced radiologist. Structured and standardized reporting of prostate MRI is paramount. State of the art mpMRI is capable to localize small tumors for focal therapy. State of the art mpMRI is the technique of choice for follow up of focal ablation.The present evidence for MRI in focal therapy is limited. mpMRI is not accurate enough to consistently grade tumor aggressiveness. Template guided saturation biopsies are no longer necessary when a hig