Whole Body MRI in Multiple Myeloma: Optimising Image Acquisition and Read Times

Objective: To identify the whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) image type(s) with the highest value for assessment of multiple myeloma, in order to optimise acquisition protocols and read times. Methods: Thirty patients with clinically-suspected MM underwent WB-MRI at 3 Tesla. Unenhanced Dixon images [fat-only (FO) and water-only (WO)], post contrast Dixon [fat-only plus contrast (FOC) and water-only plus contrast (WOC)] and diffusion weighted images (DWI) of the pelvis from all 30 patients were randomised and read by three experienced readers. For each image type, each reader identified and labelled all visible myeloma lesions. Each identified lesion was compared with a composite reference standard achieved by review of a complete imaging dataset by a further experienced consultant radiologist to determine truly positive lesions. Lesion count, true positives, sensitivity, and positive predictive value were determined. Time to read each scan set was recorded. Confidence for a diagnosis of myeloma was scored using a Likert scale. Conspicuity of focal lesions was assessed in terms of percent contrast and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). Results: Lesion count, true positives, sensitivity and confidence scores were significantly higher when compared to other image types for DWI (P<0.0001 to 0.003), followed by WOC (significant for sensitivity (P<0.0001 to 0.004), true positives (P = 0.003 to 0.049) and positive predictive value (P< 0.0001 to 0.006)). There was no statistically significant difference in these metrics between FO and FOC. Percent contrast was highest for WOC (P = 0.001 to 0.005) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR) was highest for DWI (P = 0.03 to 0.05). Reading times were fastest for DWI across all observers (P< 0.0001 to 0.014). Discussion: Observers detected more myeloma lesions on DWI images and WOC images when compared to other image types. We suggest that these image types should be read preferentially by radiologists to improve diagnostic accuracy and reporting efficiency

Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. METHODS: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. RESULTS: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing

Uncertainty analysis using Bayesian Model Averaging: a case study of input variables to energy models and inference to associated uncertainties of energy scenarios

Background Energy models are used to illustrate, calculate and evaluate energy futures under given assumptions. The results of energy models are energy scenarios representing uncertain energy futures. Methods The discussed approach for uncertainty quantification and evaluation is based on Bayesian Model Averaging for input variables to quantitative energy models. If the premise is accepted that the energy model results cannot be less uncertain than the input to energy models, the proposed approach provides a lower bound of associated uncertainty. The evaluation of model-based energy scenario uncertainty in terms of input variable uncertainty departing from a probabilistic assessment is discussed. Results The result is an explicit uncertainty quantification for input variables of energy models based on well-established measure and probability theory. The quantification of uncertainty helps assessing the predictive potential of energy scenarios used and allows an evaluation of possible consequences as promoted by energy scenarios in a highly uncertain economic, environmental, political and social target system. Conclusions If societal decisions are vested in computed model results, it is meaningful to accompany these with an uncertainty assessment. Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) for input variables of energy models could add to the currently limited tools for uncertainty assessment of model-based energy scenarios

Applying Bayesian model averaging for uncertainty estimation of input data in energy modelling

Background Energy scenarios that are used for policy advice have ecological and social impact on society. Policy measures that are based on modelling exercises may lead to far reaching financial and ecological consequences. The purpose of this study is to raise awareness that energy modelling results are accompanied with uncertainties that should be addressed explicitly. Methods With view to existing approaches of uncertainty assessment in energy economics and climate science, relevant requirements for an uncertainty assessment are defined. An uncertainty assessment should be explicit, independent of the assessor&#8217;s expertise, applicable to different models, including subjective quantitative and statistical quantitative aspects, intuitively understandable and be reproducible. Bayesian model averaging for input variables of energy models is discussed as method that satisfies these requirements. A definition of uncertainty based on posterior model probabilities of input variables to energy models is presented. Results The main findings are that (1) expert elicitation as predominant assessment method does not satisfy all requirements, (2) Bayesian model averaging for input variable modelling meets the requirements and allows evaluating a vast amount of potentially relevant influences on input variables and (3) posterior model probabilities of input variable models can be translated in uncertainty associated with the input variable. Conclusions An uncertainty assessment of energy scenarios is relevant if policy measures are (partially) based on modelling exercises. Potential implications of these findings include that energy scenarios could be associated with uncertainty that is presently neither assessed explicitly nor communicated adequately