Search

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 high quality state of the art mpMRI is available, however, suspicious lesion should always be confirmed by (targeted) biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: 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? METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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 high quality state of the art mpMRI is available, however, suspicious lesion should always be confirmed by (targeted) biopsy.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of hepatobiliary phase hypointensity and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) major imaging features in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in hepatic lesions with arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) measuring 10-19 mm in patients at high risk of HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A composite reference standard of pathologic analysis and imaging follow-up was used. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) of hepatobiliary phase hypointensity and LI-RADS major imaging features other than APHE for the diagnosis of HCC was assessed and compared by means of a logistic regression model. RESULTS. This retrospective dual-institution study included 189 LI-RADS LR-3 and LR-4 lesions measuring 10-19 mm and having APHE in 144 consecutively registered patients (96 men, 48 women; mean age, 58 years). Hepatobiliary phase hypointensity had significantly higher sensitivity (84% [92/109], p < 0.00001) than major imaging features in the diagnosis of HCC but lower specificity (84% [67/80]; p = 0.01). However, hepatobiliary phase hypointensity in LR-3 observations measuring 10-19 mm and having APHE had moderately elevated sensitivity (73% [44/60]) and specificity (85%, 64/75). All three major imaging features had high specificity for the diagnosis of HCC, including 95% (76/80) for washout, 100% (80/80) for enhancing capsule, and 99% (79/80) for threshold growth. CONCLUSION. Major imaging features have high specificity for the diagnosis of HCC in lesions measuring 10-19 mm that have APHE. The finding of hepatobiliary phase hypointensity significantly improves sensitivity while moderately high specificity is maintained for the diagnosis of HCC in LR-3 lesions measuring 10-19 mm that exhibit APHE.