Personalizing prostate cancer diagnosis with multivariate risk prediction tools: how should prostate MRI be incorporated?

Risk-based patient selection for systematic biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis has been adopted in daily clinical practice, either by clinical judgment and PSA testing, or using multivariate risk prediction tools. The use of multivariable risk prediction tools can significantly reduce unnecessary systematic biopsies, without compromising the detection of clinically significant disease. Increasingly multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is performed, not only in men with a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer after prior negative systematic biopsy, but also at initial screening before the first biopsy. The combination of MRI and multivariate risk prediction tools could potentially enhance prostate cancer diagnosis using multivariate MRI incorporated risk-based models to decide on the need for prostate MRI, but also using MRI results to adjusted risk-based models, and to guide MRI-directed biopsies. In this review, we discuss the diagnostic work-up for clinically significant prostate cancer, where the combination of MRI and multivariate risk prediction tools is integrated, and how together they can contribute to personalized diagnosis

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C). DESIGN: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L). INTERVENTIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography). REFERENCE STANDARD: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests. LIMITATIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Comparison of whole-body MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for response evaluation of cancer therapeutics in metastatic breast cancer to bone

In participants receiving systemic anticancer therapy for bone-only metastatic breast cancer, whole-body MRI enabled identification of progressive disease earlier than whole-body CT and bone scintigraphy. Background CT and bone scintigraphy have limitations in evaluating systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) response in bone metastases from metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Purpose To evaluate whether whole-body MRI enables identification of progressive disease (PD) earlier than CT and bone scintigraphy in bone-only MBC. Materials and Methods This prospective study evaluated participants with bone-only MBC between May 2016 and January 2019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03266744). Participants were enrolled at initiation of first or subsequent SACT based on standard CT and bone scintigraphy imaging. Baseline whole-body MRI was performed within 2 weeks of entry; those with extraosseous disease were excluded. CT and whole-body MRI were performed every 12 weeks until definitive PD was evident with one or both modalities. In case of PD, bone scintigraphy was used to assess for bone disease progression. Radiologists independently interpreted images from CT, whole-body MRI, or bone scintigraphy and were blinded to results with the other modalities. Systematic differences in performance between modalities were analyzed by using the McNemar test. Results Forty-five participants (mean age, 60 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; all women) were evaluated. Median time on study was 36 weeks (range, 1–120 weeks). Two participants were excluded because of unequivocal evidence of liver metastases at baseline whole-body MRI, two participants were excluded because they had clinical progression before imaging showed PD, and one participant was lost to follow-up. Of the 33 participants with PD at imaging, 67% (22 participants) had PD evident at whole-body MRI only and 33% (11 participants) had PD at CT and whole-body MRI concurrently; none had PD at CT only (P < .001, McNemar test). There was only slight agreement between whole-body MRI and CT (Cohen κ, 0.15). PD at bone scintigraphy was reported in 50% of participants (13 of 26) with bone progression at CT and/or whole-body MRI (P < .001, McNemar test). Conclusion Whole-body MRI enabled identification of progressive disease before CT in most participants with bone-only metastatic breast cancer. Progressive disease at bone scintigraphy was evident in only half of participants with bone progression at whole-body MRI

ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training

Objectives: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disa

Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-Body MRI in Myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS).

Acknowledging the increasingly important role of whole-body MRI for directing patient care in myeloma, a multidisciplinary, international, and expert panel of radiologists, medical physicists, and hematologists with specific expertise in whole-body MRI in myeloma convened to discuss the technical performance standards, merits, and limitations of currently available imaging methods. Following guidance from the International Myeloma Working Group and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, the Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (or MY-RADS) imaging recommendations are designed to promote standardization and diminish variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma and allow response assessment. This consensus proposes a core clinical protocol for whole-body MRI and an extended protocol for advanced assessments. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article

Optimum imaging strategies for advanced prostate cancer: ASCO guideline

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared $ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario

Modelo para redução do risco à segurança do consumidor no desenvolvimento de produtos de consumo /

Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro Tecnológico

Imaging oxygenation of human tumours

Tumour hypoxia represents a significant challenge to the curability of human tumours leading to treatment resistance and enhanced tumour progression. Tumour hypoxia can be detected by non-invasive and invasive techniques but the inter-relationships between these remains largely undefined. (18)F-MISO and Cu-ATSM-PET, and BOLD-MRI are the lead contenders for human application based on their non-invasive nature, ease of use and robustness, measurement of hypoxia status, validity, ability to demonstrate heterogeneity and general availability, these techniques are the primary focus of this review. We discuss where developments are required for hypoxia imaging to become clinically useful and explore potential new uses for hypoxia imaging techniques including biological conformal radiotherapy

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer : the report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

BACKGROUND: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process