Search

Your search keyword '"Turkbey B"' showing total 770 results
Start Over Author "Turkbey B"
770 results on '"Turkbey B"'

1. A phase 1 safety, PK and preliminary efficacy study of localized therapy using biolen (Bicalutamide) implants for early-stage prostate cancer

Author

Kenigsberg, A., primary, Woo, H., additional, Fraundorfer, M., additional, Brennan, J., additional, Chin, P., additional, Turkbey, B., additional, Choyke, P., additional, Citrin, D., additional, Wood, B., additional, Desai, P., additional, Rairkar, M., additional, Munster, P., additional, and Pinto, P.A., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Horwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H.M., De Reijke, T.M., De Santis, M., Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Palou, J., Powles, T., Ribal, M.J., Shariat, S.F., Van Der Kwast, T., Xylinas, E., Agarwal, N., Arends, T., Bamias, A., Birtle, A., Black, P.C., Bochner, B.H., Bolla, M., Boormans, J.L., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Brummelhuis, I., Burger, M., Castellano, D., Cathomas, R., Chiti, A., Choudhury, A., Compérat, E., Crabb, S., Culine, S., De Bari, B., DeBlok, W., De Visschere, P.J.L., Decaestecker, K., Dimitropoulos, K., Dominguez-Escrig, J.L., Fanti, S., Fonteyne, V., Frydenberg, M., Futterer, J.J., Gakis, G., Geavlete, B., Gontero, P., Grubmüller, B., Hafeez, S., Hansel, D.E., Hartmann, A., Hayne, D., Henry, A.M., Hernandez, V., Herr, H., Herrmann, K., Hoskin, P., Huguet, J., Jereczek-Fossa, B.A., Jones, R., Kamat, A.M., Khoo, V., Kiltie, A.E., Krege, S., Ladoire, S., Lara, P.C., Leliveld, A., Linares-Espinós, E., Løgager, V., Lorch, A., Loriot, Y., Meijer, R., Carmen Mir, M., Moschini, M., Mostafid, H., Müller, A.-C., Müller, C.R., N’Dow, J., Necchi, A., Neuzillet, Y., Oddens, J.R., Oldenburg, J., Osanto, S., Oyen, W.J.G., Pacheco-Figueiredo, L., Pappot, H., Patel, M.I., Pieters, B.R., Plass, K., Remzi, M., Retz, M., Richenberg, J., Rink, M., Roghmann, F., Rosenberg, J.E., Rouprêt, M., Rouvière, O., Salembier, C., Salminen, A., Sargos, P., Sengupta, S., Sherif, A., Smeenk, R.J., Smits, A., Stenzl, A., Thalmann, G.N., Tombal, B., Turkbey, B., Vahr Lauridsen, S., Valdagni, R., Van Der Heijden, A.G., Van Poppel, H., Vartolomei, M.D., Veskimäe, E., Vilaseca, A., Vives Rivera, F.A., Wiegel, T., Wiklund, P., Williams, A., Zigeuner, R., and Witjes, J.A.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer

Author

Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Comperat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmuller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinos E, Logager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Muller AC, Muller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Roupret M, Rouviere O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimae E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A, Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Der Heijden AGV, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A., UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, Witjes, Ja, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, Hm, De Reijke, Tm, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, Mj, Shariat, Sf, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, Pc, Bochner, Bh, Bolla, M, Boormans, Jl, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, Pjl, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, Jl, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, Jj, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmuller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, De, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, Am, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, Ba, Jones, R, Kamat, Am, Khoo, V, Kiltie, Ae, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, Pc, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, Mc, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Muller, Ac, Muller, Cr, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, Jr, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, Wjg, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, Mi, Pieters, Br, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, Je, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, Rj, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, Gn, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, Sv, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, Ag, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, Md, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, Fav, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Horwich, A

Subjects
Treatment, Consensus, Follow-up, education, Bladder cancer, Diagnosis, Consensu, Delphi, Diagnosi
Abstract

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and

Published
2020

19. Detection of Failure Patterns Using Advanced Imaging in Patients With Biochemical Recurrence Following Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer

Author

Salerno, K.E., primary, Turkbey, B., additional, Lindenberg, L., additional, Mena, E., additional, Schott, E.E., additional, Brennan, A.K., additional, Patel, K., additional, Zgela, T. Cooley, additional, McKinney, Y., additional, Wood, B., additional, Pinto, P.A., additional, Choyke, P., additional, and Citrin, D.E., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. 605P Analysis of serial PET imaging and paired Tc99 scans in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide

Author

Madan, R.A., primary, Gandhy, S.U., additional, Karzai, F., additional, Bilusic, M., additional, McMahon, S., additional, Strauss, J., additional, Marte, J., additional, Weisman, A.J., additional, Perk, T.G., additional, Yip, S.D., additional, Lindenberg, L., additional, Mena Gonzalez, E., additional, Turkbey, B., additional, Figg, W.D., additional, Arlen, P., additional, Choyke, P., additional, Dahut, W.L., additional, and Gulley, J., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging

Author

Penzkofer, T., Padhani, A.R., Turkbey, B., Haider, M.A., Huisman, H.J., Walz, J., Salomon, G., Schoots, I.G., Richenberg, J., Villeirs, G., Panebianco, V, Rouviere, O., Logager, V.B., Barentsz, J.O., Penzkofer, T., Padhani, A.R., Turkbey, B., Haider, M.A., Huisman, H.J., Walz, J., Salomon, G., Schoots, I.G., Richenberg, J., Villeirs, G., Panebianco, V, Rouviere, O., Logager, V.B., and Barentsz, J.O.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 245173.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: * AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence. * Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies. * Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

Published
2021

22. PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review

Author

Schoots, I.G., Barentsz, J.O., Bittencourt, L.K., Haider, M.A., Macura, K.J., Margolis, D.J., Moore, C.M., Oto, A., Panebianco, V, Siddiqui, M.M., Tempany, C., Turkbey, B., Villeirs, G.M., Weinreb, J.C., Padhani, A.R., Schoots, I.G., Barentsz, J.O., Bittencourt, L.K., Haider, M.A., Macura, K.J., Margolis, D.J., Moore, C.M., Oto, A., Panebianco, V, Siddiqui, M.M., Tempany, C., Turkbey, B., Villeirs, G.M., Weinreb, J.C., and Padhani, A.R.

Abstract

Item does not contain fulltext, The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Published
2021

23. A multifaceted approach to quality in the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis

Author

Padhani, A.R., Schoots, I.G., Turkbey, B., Giannarini, G., Barentsz, J.O., Padhani, A.R., Schoots, I.G., Turkbey, B., Giannarini, G., and Barentsz, J.O.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 235571.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), KEY POINTS: * Identify, assure, and measure major sources of variability affecting the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.* Develop strategies to control and minimize variations that impair pathway effectiveness including the performance of main players and team working.* Assure end-to-end quality of the diagnostic chain with robust multidisciplinary team working.

Published
2021

26. Corrigendum to ‘EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees’ [European Urology 77 (2020) 223–250](S0302283819307638)(10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035)

Author

Witjes, J.A. Babjuk, M. Bellmunt, J. Bruins, H.M. De Reijke, T.M. De Santis, M. Gillessen, S. James, N. Maclennan, S. Palou, J. Powles, T. Ribal, M.J. Shariat, S.F. Van Der Kwast, T. Xylinas, E. Agarwal, N. Arends, T. Bamias, A. Birtle, A. Black, P.C. Bochner, B.H. Bolla, M. Boormans, J.L. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Brummelhuis, I. Burger, M. Castellano, D. Cathomas, R. Chiti, A. Choudhury, A. Compérat, E. Crabb, S. Culine, S. De Bari, B. De Blok, W. De Visschere, P.J.L. Decaestecker, K. Dimitropoulos, K. Dominguez-Escrig, J.L. Fanti, S. Fonteyne, V. Frydenberg, M. Futterer, J.J. Gakis, G. Geavlete, B. Gontero, P. Grubmüller, B. Hafeez, S. Hansel, D.E. Hartmann, A. Hayne, D. Henry, A.M. Hernandez, V. Herr, H. Herrmann, K. Hoskin, P. Huguet, J. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kamat, A.M. Khoo, V. Kiltie, A.E. Krege, S. Ladoire, S. Lara, P.C. Leliveld, A. Linares-Espinós, E. Løgager, V. Lorch, A. Loriot, Y. Meijer, R. Mir, M.C. Moschini, M. Mostafid, H. Müller, A.-C. Müller, C.R. N'Dow, J. Necchi, A. Neuzillet, Y. Oddens, J.R. Oldenburg, J. Osanto, S. Oyen, W.J.G. Pacheco-Figueiredo, L. Pappot, H. Patel, M.I. Pieters, B.R. Plass, K. Remzi, M. Retz, M. Richenberg, J. Rink, M. Roghmann, F. Rosenberg, J.E. Rouprêt, M. Rouvière, O. Salembier, C. Salminen, A. Sargos, P. Sengupta, S. Sherif, A. Smeenk, R.J. Smits, A. Stenzl, A. Thalmann, G.N. Tombal, B. Turkbey, B. Lauridsen, S.V. Valdagni, R. Van Der Heijden, A.G. Van Poppel, H. Vartolomei, M.D. Veskimäe, E. Vilaseca, A. Rivera, F.A.V. Wiegel, T. Wiklund, P. Willemse, P.-P.M. Williams, A. Zigeuner, R. Horwich, A.

Abstract

The authors regret that a co-author was mistakenly missed from the authorship. The following co-author should have been included in the authorship: Peter-Paul M. Willemse Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology

Published
2020

27. EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort†: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A.

Subjects
Consensus, Follow-up, education, Bladder cancer, Diagnosis, Treatment, Delphi
Abstract

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Published
2020

28. 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

Author

Westphalen, A.C., McCulloch, C.E., Anaokar, J.M., Arora, S., Barashi, N.S., Barentsz, J.O., Bathala, T.K., Bittencourt, L.K., Booker, M.T., Braxton, V.G., Carroll, P.R., Casalino, D.D., Chang, S.D., Coakley, F.V., Dhatt, R., Eberhardt, S.C., Foster, B.R., Froemming, A.T., Futterer, J.J., Ganeshan, D.M., Gertner, M.R., Gettle, L. Mankowski, Ghai, S., Gupta, R.T., Hahn, M.E., Houshyar, R., Kim, C., Kim, C.K., Lall, C., Margolis, D.J., McRae, S.E., Oto, A., Parsons, R.B., Patel, N.U., Pinto, P.A., Polascik, T.J., Spilseth, B., Starcevich, J.B., Tammisetti, V.S., Taneja, S.S., Turkbey, B., Verma, S., Ward, J.F., Warlick, C.A., Weinberger, A.R., Yu, J., Zagoria, R.J., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Westphalen, A.C., McCulloch, C.E., Anaokar, J.M., Arora, S., Barashi, N.S., Barentsz, J.O., Bathala, T.K., Bittencourt, L.K., Booker, M.T., Braxton, V.G., Carroll, P.R., Casalino, D.D., Chang, S.D., Coakley, F.V., Dhatt, R., Eberhardt, S.C., Foster, B.R., Froemming, A.T., Futterer, J.J., Ganeshan, D.M., Gertner, M.R., Gettle, L. Mankowski, Ghai, S., Gupta, R.T., Hahn, M.E., Houshyar, R., Kim, C., Kim, C.K., Lall, C., Margolis, D.J., McRae, S.E., Oto, A., Parsons, R.B., Patel, N.U., Pinto, P.A., Polascik, T.J., Spilseth, B., Starcevich, J.B., Tammisetti, V.S., Taneja, S.S., Turkbey, B., Verma, S., Ward, J.F., Warlick, C.A., Weinberger, A.R., Yu, J., Zagoria, R.J., and Rosenkrantz, A.B.

Abstract

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

Published
2020

29. Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

Author

Stabile, A., Giganti, F., Kasivisvanathan, V, Giannarini, G., Moore, C.M., Padhani, A.R., Panebianco, V, Rosenkrantz, A.B., Salomon, G., Turkbey, B., Villeirs, G., Barentsz, J.O., Stabile, A., Giganti, F., Kasivisvanathan, V, Giannarini, G., Moore, C.M., Padhani, A.R., Panebianco, V, Rosenkrantz, A.B., Salomon, G., Turkbey, B., Villeirs, G., and Barentsz, J.O.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 220776.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), CONTEXT: There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect and localize clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current literature assessing the factors influencing the variability of mpMRI performance in csPCa diagnosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerized bibliographic search of Medline/PubMed database was performed for all studies assessing magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, assessment system used by radiologists and inter-reader variability, experience of radiologists and urologists, use of a contrast agent, and use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools in relation to mpMRI diagnostic accuracy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 77 articles were included. Both radiologists' reading experience and urologists'/radiologists' biopsy experience were the main factors that influenced diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, it is mandatory to indicate the experience of the interpreting radiologists and biopsy-performing urologists to support the reliability of the findings. The most recent Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines are recommended for use as the main assessment system for csPCa, given the simplified and standardized approach as well as its particular added value for less experienced radiologists. Biparametric MRI had similar accuracy to mpMRI; however, biparametric MRI performed better with experienced readers. The limited data available suggest that the combination of CAD and radiologist readings may influence diagnostic accuracy positively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors affect the accuracy of mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to detect and localize csPCa. The high heterogeneity across the studies underlines the need to define the experience of radiologists and urologists, implement quality control, and adhere to the most recent PI-RADS assessment guidelines. Further re

Published
2020

30. EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Witjes, JA, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, HM, De Reijke, TM, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, MJ, Shariat, SF, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, PC, Bochner, BH, Bolla, M, Boormans, JL, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, PJL, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, JL, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, JJ, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmueller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, DE, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, AM, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, BA, Jones, R, Kamat, AM, Khoo, V, Kiltie, AE, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, PC, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, MC, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Mueller, A-C, Mueller, CR, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, JR, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M, Pieters, BR, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, JE, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, RJ, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, GN, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, SV, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, AG, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, MD, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, FAV, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Horwich, A, Witjes, JA, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, HM, De Reijke, TM, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, MJ, Shariat, SF, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, PC, Bochner, BH, Bolla, M, Boormans, JL, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, PJL, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, JL, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, JJ, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmueller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, DE, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, AM, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, BA, Jones, R, Kamat, AM, Khoo, V, Kiltie, AE, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, PC, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, MC, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Mueller, A-C, Mueller, CR, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, JR, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M, Pieters, BR, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, JE, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, RJ, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, GN, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, SV, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, AG, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, MD, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, FAV, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Horwich, A

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus stateme

Published
2020

32. 643P Evaluating biomarkers in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients (Pts) treated with enzalutamide (Enza): PSA, circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts, AR-V7 status, PET imaging vs. CT & Tc99 scans

Author

Gandhy, S., primary, Gonzales, E.M., additional, Karzai, F., additional, Marte, J., additional, Bilusic, M., additional, McMahon, S., additional, Strauss, J., additional, Steinberg, S., additional, Gill, A., additional, Tubbs, A., additional, Schonhoft, J., additional, Choyke, P., additional, Turkbey, B., additional, Lindenberg, L., additional, Figg, W.D., additional, Arlen, P., additional, Dahut, W., additional, Gulley, J.L., additional, and Madan, R.A., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Abstract No. 468 Cost analysis of focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: in magnetic resonance imaging versus transrectal ultrasound fusion guidance outside magnetic resonance imaging

Author

Amalou, A., primary, Xu, S., additional, Turkbey, B., additional, Anderson, V., additional, Pinto, P., additional, Merino, M., additional, Choyke, P., additional, Dahut, W., additional, Amalou, H., additional, Sanford, T., additional, Mehralivand, S., additional, Harmon, S., additional, and Wood, B., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: A multireader study

Author

Smith, CP, Harmon, SA, Barrett, T, Bittencourt, LK, Law, YM, Shebel, H, An, JY, Czarniecki, M, Mehralivand, S, Coskun, M, Wood, BJ, Pinto, PA, Shih, JH, Choyke, PL, Turkbey, B, Barrett, Tristan [0000-0002-1180-1474], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository

Subjects
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Image-Guided Biopsy, Male, Observer Variation, reader reproducibility, Biopsy, Prostate, Contrast Media, Prostatic Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Reference Standards, prostate cancer, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Humans, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Algorithms, MRI, PI-RADS, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography
Abstract

Background: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2. Purpose: To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Study Type: Retrospective. Population/Subjects: In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy. Field Strength/Sequences: Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI). Assessment: Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period. Statistical Tests: Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (Po) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43–0.67, Po = 0.60–0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, Po = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and Po = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. Data Conclusion: PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI. Level of Evidence: 2. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.

Published
2019

37. EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Horwich, A. Babjuk, M. Bellmunt, J. Bruins, H.M. De Reijke, T.M. De Santis, M. Gillessen, S. James, N. Maclennan, S. Palou, J. Powles, T. Ribal, M.J. Shariat, S.F. Van Der Kwast, T. Xylinas, E. Agarwal, N. Arends, T. Bamias, A. Birtle, A. Black, P.C. Bochner, B.H. Bolla, M. Boormans, J.L. Bossi, A. Briganti, A. Brummelhuis, I. Burger, M. Castellano, D. Cathomas, R. Chiti, A. Choudhury, A. Compérat, E. Crabb, S. Culine, S. De Bari, B. DeBlok, W. De Visschere, P.J.L. Decaestecker, K. Dimitropoulos, K. Dominguez-Escrig, J.L. Fanti, S. Fonteyne, V. Frydenberg, M. Futterer, J.J. Gakis, G. Geavlete, B. Gontero, P. Grubmüller, B. Hafeez, S. Hansel, D.E. Hartmann, A. Hayne, D. Henry, A.M. Hernandez, V. Herr, H. Herrmann, K. Hoskin, P. Huguet, J. Jereczek-Fossa, B.A. Jones, R. Kamat, A.M. Khoo, V. Kiltie, A.E. Krege, S. Ladoire, S. Lara, P.C. Leliveld, A. Linares-Espinós, E. Løgager, V. Lorch, A. Loriot, Y. Meijer, R. Carmen Mir, M. Moschini, M. Mostafid, H. Müller, A.-C. Müller, C.R. N'Dow, J. Necchi, A. Neuzillet, Y. Oddens, J.R. Oldenburg, J. Osanto, S. Oyen, W.J.G. Pacheco-Figueiredo, L. Pappot, H. Patel, M.I. Pieters, B.R. Plass, K. Remzi, M. Retz, M. Richenberg, J. Rink, M. Roghmann, F. Rosenberg, J.E. Rouprêt, M. Rouvière, O. Salembier, C. Salminen, A. Sargos, P. Sengupta, S. Sherif, A. Smeenk, R.J. Smits, A. Stenzl, A. Thalmann, G.N. Tombal, B. Turkbey, B. Vahr Lauridsen, S. Valdagni, R. Van Der Heijden, A.G. Van Poppel, H. Vartolomei, M.D. Veskimäe, E. Vilaseca, A. Vives Rivera, F.A. Wiegel, T. Wiklund, P. Williams, A. Zigeuner, R. Witjes, J.A.

Subjects
education
Abstract

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. © 2019 European Society for Medical Oncology

Published
2019

39. EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer - an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort : under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, Amir, Smeenk, R J, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Der Heijden, A G, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Witjes, J A, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, Amir, Smeenk, R J, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Der Heijden, A G, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Witjes, J A

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus sta

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions

Author

Padhani, A.R., Weinreb, J., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Villeirs, G., Turkbey, B., Barentsz, J., Padhani, A.R., Weinreb, J., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Villeirs, G., Turkbey, B., and Barentsz, J.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 203381.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), CONTEXT: The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 analysis system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is based on PI-RADS v1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus opinion. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADS v2, discuss pathway implications of its use and outline opportunities for improvements and future developments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this consensus expert opinion from the PI-RADS steering committee, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines for mpMRI PCa detection were evaluated. We focused on the performance characteristics of PI-RADS v2, comparing data to systems based on clinicoradiologic Likert scales and non-PI-RADS v2 imaging only. Evidence selections were based on high-quality, prospective, histologically verified data, with minimal patient selection and verifications biases. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice retains higher accuracy over systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PI-RADS v2 fails to detect all cancers but does detect the majority of tumors capable of causing patient harm, which should not be missed. Test performance depends on the definition and prevalence of clinically significant disease. Good performance can be attained in practice when the quality of the diagnostic process can be assured, together with joint working of robustly trained radiologists and urologists, conducting biopsy procedures within multidisciplinary teams. CONCLUSIONS: It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice is improved, retaining higher accuracy over systematic TRUS biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-directed biopsies using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System improves the detection

Published
2019

43. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2

Author

Turkbey, B., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Haider, M.A., Padhani, A.R., Villeirs, G., Macura, K.J., Tempany, C.M., Choyke, P.L., Cornud, F., Margolis, D.J., Thoeny, H.C., Verma, S., Barentsz, J., Weinreb, J.C., Turkbey, B., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Haider, M.A., Padhani, A.R., Villeirs, G., Macura, K.J., Tempany, C.M., Choyke, P.L., Cornud, F., Margolis, D.J., Thoeny, H.C., Verma, S., Barentsz, J., and Weinreb, J.C.

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 209078.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) was developed with a consensus-based process using a combination of published data, and expert observations and opinions. In the short time since its release, numerous studies have validated the value of PI-RADS v2 but, as expected, have also identified a number of ambiguities and limitations, some of which have been documented in the literature with potential solutions offered. To address these issues, the PI-RADS Steering Committee, again using a consensus-based process, has recommended several modifications to PI-RADS v2, maintaining the framework of assigning scores to individual sequences and using these scores to derive an overall assessment category. This updated version, described in this article, is termed PI-RADS v2.1. It is anticipated that the adoption of these PI-RADS v2.1 modifications will improve inter-reader variability and simplify PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging even further. Research on the value and limitations on all components of PI-RADS v2.1 is strongly encouraged.

Published
2019

44. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†.

Author

UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, Witjes, J A, Van Der Heijden, A G, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, Bertrand, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Poppel, H, Sherif, A, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Smeenk, R J, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, Witjes, J A, Van Der Heijden, A G, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, Bertrand, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Poppel, H, Sherif, A, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Smeenk, R J, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, and Sengupta, S

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus sta

Published
2019

46. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

Author

Cancer, Verpleegkundig Specialisten, MS Urologische Oncologie, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, R J, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Der Heijden, A G, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Witjes, J A, Cancer, Verpleegkundig Specialisten, MS Urologische Oncologie, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, H M, Reijke, T M De, Santis, M De, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, M J, Shariat, S F, Kwast, T Van Der, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, P C, Bochner, B H, Bolla, M, Boormans, J L, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Compérat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, Bari, B De, Blok, W De, De Visschere, P J L, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, J L, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, J J, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmüller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, D E, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, A M, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, B A, Jones, R, Kamat, A M, Khoo, V, Kiltie, A E, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, P C, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinós, E, Løgager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, M Carmen, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Müller, A-C, Müller, C R, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, J R, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, W J G, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M I, Pieters, B R, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, J E, Rouprêt, M, Rouvière, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, R J, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, G N, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, S Vahr, Valdagni, R, Van Der Heijden, A G, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, M D, Veskimäe, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, F A Vives, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Witjes, J A

Published
2019

47. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort:under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

Author

Horwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H. M., Reijke, T. M.De, Santis, M. De, Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Palou, J., Powles, T., Ribal, M. J., Shariat, S. F., Kwast, T. Van Der, Xylinas, E., Agarwal, N., Arends, T., Bamias, A., Birtle, A., Black, P. C., Bochner, B. H., Bolla, M., Boormans, J. L., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Brummelhuis, I., Burger, M., Castellano, D., Cathomas, R., Chiti, A., Choudhury, A., Compérat, E., Crabb, S., Culine, S., Bari, B. De, Blok, W. De, De Visschere, P. J.L., Decaestecker, K., Dimitropoulos, K., Dominguez-Escrig, J. L., Fanti, S., Fonteyne, V., Frydenberg, M., Futterer, J. J., Gakis, G., Geavlete, B., Gontero, P., Grubmüller, B., Hafeez, S., Hansel, D. E., Hartmann, A., Hayne, D., Henry, A. M., Hernandez, V., Herr, H., Herrmann, K., Hoskin, P., Huguet, J., Jereczek-Fossa, B. A., Jones, R., Kamat, A. M., Khoo, V., Kiltie, A. E., Krege, S., Ladoire, S., Lara, P. C., Leliveld, A., Linares-Espinós, E., Løgager, V., Lorch, A., Loriot, Y., Meijer, R., Mir, M. Carmen, Moschini, M., Mostafid, H., Müller, A. C., Müller, C. R., N'Dow, J., Necchi, A., Neuzillet, Y., Oddens, J. R., Oldenburg, J., Osanto, S., Oyen, W. J.G., Pacheco-Figueiredo, L., Pappot, H., Patel, M. I., Pieters, B. R., Plass, K., Remzi, M., Retz, M., Richenberg, J., Rink, M., Roghmann, F., Rosenberg, J. E., Rouprêt, M., Rouvière, O., Salembier, C., Salminen, A., Sargos, P., Sengupta, S., Sherif, A., Smeenk, R. J., Smits, A., Stenzl, A., Thalmann, G. N., Tombal, B., Turkbey, B., Lauridsen, S. Vahr, Valdagni, R., Van Der Heijden, A. G., Van Poppel, H., Vartolomei, M. D., Veskimäe, E., Vilaseca, A., Rivera, F. A.Vives, Wiegel, T., Wiklund, P., Williams, A., Zigeuner, R., Witjes, J. A., Horwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H. M., Reijke, T. M.De, Santis, M. De, Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Palou, J., Powles, T., Ribal, M. J., Shariat, S. F., Kwast, T. Van Der, Xylinas, E., Agarwal, N., Arends, T., Bamias, A., Birtle, A., Black, P. C., Bochner, B. H., Bolla, M., Boormans, J. L., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Brummelhuis, I., Burger, M., Castellano, D., Cathomas, R., Chiti, A., Choudhury, A., Compérat, E., Crabb, S., Culine, S., Bari, B. De, Blok, W. De, De Visschere, P. J.L., Decaestecker, K., Dimitropoulos, K., Dominguez-Escrig, J. L., Fanti, S., Fonteyne, V., Frydenberg, M., Futterer, J. J., Gakis, G., Geavlete, B., Gontero, P., Grubmüller, B., Hafeez, S., Hansel, D. E., Hartmann, A., Hayne, D., Henry, A. M., Hernandez, V., Herr, H., Herrmann, K., Hoskin, P., Huguet, J., Jereczek-Fossa, B. A., Jones, R., Kamat, A. M., Khoo, V., Kiltie, A. E., Krege, S., Ladoire, S., Lara, P. C., Leliveld, A., Linares-Espinós, E., Løgager, V., Lorch, A., Loriot, Y., Meijer, R., Mir, M. Carmen, Moschini, M., Mostafid, H., Müller, A. C., Müller, C. R., N'Dow, J., Necchi, A., Neuzillet, Y., Oddens, J. R., Oldenburg, J., Osanto, S., Oyen, W. J.G., Pacheco-Figueiredo, L., Pappot, H., Patel, M. I., Pieters, B. R., Plass, K., Remzi, M., Retz, M., Richenberg, J., Rink, M., Roghmann, F., Rosenberg, J. E., Rouprêt, M., Rouvière, O., Salembier, C., Salminen, A., Sargos, P., Sengupta, S., Sherif, A., Smeenk, R. J., Smits, A., Stenzl, A., Thalmann, G. N., Tombal, B., Turkbey, B., Lauridsen, S. Vahr, Valdagni, R., Van Der Heijden, A. G., Van Poppel, H., Vartolomei, M. D., Veskimäe, E., Vilaseca, A., Rivera, F. A.Vives, Wiegel, T., Wiklund, P., Williams, A., Zigeuner, R., and Witjes, J. A.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus

Published
2019

48. Integrated Radiogenomic Subtyping and Treatment Response of Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer

Author

Sowalsky, A., primary, Turkbey, B., additional, Trostel, S., additional, Shankavaram, U.T., additional, Carrabba, N., additional, Sater, H.A., additional, Lake, R., additional, Rowe, L., additional, Cooley-Zgela, T., additional, Schott, E.E., additional, Zhang, H., additional, Pinto, P.A., additional, Wood, B., additional, Liu, S., additional, Davicioni, E., additional, Choyke, P., additional, and Citrin, D.E., additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Can computer-aided diagnosis assist in the identification of prostate cancer on prostate MRI? a multi-center, multi-reader investigation

Author

Gaur, S., Lay, N., Harmon, S.A., Doddakashi, S., Mehralivand, S., Argun, B., Barrett, T., Bednarova, S., Girometti, R., Karaarslan, E., Kural, A.R., Oto, A., Purysko, A.S., Antic, T., Magi-Galluzzi, C., Saglican, Y., Sioletic, S., Warren, A.Y., Bittencourt, L., Futterer, J.J., Gupta, R.T., Kabakus, I., Law, Y.M., Margolis, D.J., Shebel, H., Westphalen, A.C., Wood, B.J., Pinto, P.A., Shih, J.H., Choyke, P.L., Summers, R.M., Turkbey, B., Gaur, S., Lay, N., Harmon, S.A., Doddakashi, S., Mehralivand, S., Argun, B., Barrett, T., Bednarova, S., Girometti, R., Karaarslan, E., Kural, A.R., Oto, A., Purysko, A.S., Antic, T., Magi-Galluzzi, C., Saglican, Y., Sioletic, S., Warren, A.Y., Bittencourt, L., Futterer, J.J., Gupta, R.T., Kabakus, I., Law, Y.M., Margolis, D.J., Shebel, H., Westphalen, A.C., Wood, B.J., Pinto, P.A., Shih, J.H., Choyke, P.L., Summers, R.M., and Turkbey, B.

Abstract

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.

Published
2018

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results