Comparing bladder neck contracture rate between robotic intracorporeal and extracorporeal neobladder construction

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has become more accessible to surgeons worldwide, and descriptions of intracorporeal urinary diversion techniques, such as orthotopic neobladder construction, have increased. In this study, we aim to compare the rate of bladder neck contracture (BNC) formation between RARC and two different urinary diversion techniques. We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database for patients with bladder cancer who underwent RARC with intracorporeal neobladder (ICNB) construction (n = 11) or extracorporeal neobladder (ECNB) construction (n = 11) between 2012 and 2020. BNC was defined by the need for an additional surgical procedure (e.g., dilatation, urethrotomy). Patients who underwent RARC with ICNB (n = 11) were compared to patients who underwent RARC with ECNB (n = 11) across patient characteristics and postoperative BNC formation rates. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for freedom from BNC based on the neobladder approach and compared with the log-rank test. For patients who received an ECNB, 73% (8/11) developed a BNC; in comparison, none of the patients in the ICNB group experienced a BNC. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates the ECNB group\u27s median probability of freedom from BNC as 1.3 years, while the ICNB group was free of BNC over the study period (p \u3c 0.001). RARC with ICNB creation demonstrated a significantly reduced BNC rate in contrast to RARC with ECNB construction. Longer-term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of this difference in BNC rates

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

© RSNA, 2020. 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 6 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 value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers

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

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 value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue