Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm of any grade [PROMIS definition 1]) in those patients who underwent a biopsy. Adverse events were defined according to Good Clinical Practice and trial regulatory guidelines. The trial is registered on ISRCTN, 38541912, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712684, with recruitment and follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity

Diagnostic Sensitivity of Unenhanced CT for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Can Clot Density Measurement Replace CT Venogram?

Objectives Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is an important cause of stroke in young adults. Noncontrast-enhanced CT head (NECT) is almost always the first investigation. Our objectives were as follows: 1. How accurately does venous sinus density on NECT predict the presence of clot on CT venogram (CTV)? 2. Whether repeated measurements changed the confidence? 3. How many venous sinus thrombus would be missed if we do not do a CTV? 4. Can clot density measurement replace CTV? Methods Multicenter case–control study was designed with data from seven hospitals. Inclusion criteria: all CT and magnetic resonance imaging venograms with a prior NECT, performed between 1.1.2018 and 31.12.2018 (12 months), were included. Hounsfield unit (HU) values were calculated at the site of highest density on the NECT. Logistic regression analysis was performed using STATA. Result Two-hundred seventy-seven cases met the criteria with 33 positive cerebral venous thrombosis (density on NECT 60–92 HU) and 244 negative examinations (density on NECT 31–68 HU). Area under the curve for average clot density on NECT was 0.9984. Conclusion We found a strong relationship between sinus density on NECT and outcome of CTV. Repeating density measurements did not add any predictive value or changed outcome. Advances in Knowledge Density 70 HU or higher on NECT always resulted in a positive CTV but would miss a fifth of the positives. Cutoff at 60 HU would not miss any but result in significant false positives. An efficient option could be to limit CTV to sinus densities 60 to 70 HU only. However, a larger study would be required for such change in practice

Postoperative continuous positive airway pressure to prevent pneumonia, re-intubation, and death after major abdominal surgery (PRISM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Respiratory complications are an important cause of postoperative morbidity. We aimed to investigate whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) administered immediately after major abdominal surgery could prevent postoperative morbidity. Methods: PRISM was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 70 hospitals across six countries. Patients aged 50 years or older who were undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPAP within 4 h of the end of surgery or usual postoperative care. Patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm with inbuilt concealment. The primary outcome was a composite of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death within 30 days after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received CPAP. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56012545. Findings: Between Feb 8, 2016, and Nov 11, 2019, 4806 patients were randomly assigned (2405 to the CPAP group and 2401 to the usual care group), of whom 4793 were included in the primary analysis (2396 in the CPAP group and 2397 in the usual care group). 195 (8\ub71%) of 2396 patients in the CPAP group and 197 (8\ub72%) of 2397 patients in the usual care group met the composite primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1\ub701 [95% CI 0\ub781-1\ub724]; p=0\ub795). 200 (8\ub79%) of 2241 patients in the CPAP group had adverse events. The most common adverse events were claustrophobia (78 [3\ub75%] of 2241 patients), oronasal dryness (43 [1\ub79%]), excessive air leak (36 [1\ub76%]), vomiting (26 [1\ub72%]), and pain (24 [1\ub71%]). There were two serious adverse events: one patient had significant hearing loss and one patient had obstruction of their venous catheter caused by a CPAP hood, which resulted in transient haemodynamic instability. Interpretation: In this large clinical effectiveness trial, CPAP did not reduce the incidence of pneumonia, endotracheal re-intubation, or death after major abdominal surgery. Although CPAP has an important role in the treatment of respiratory failure after surgery, routine use of prophylactic post-operative CPAP is not recommended