Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for prostate cancer detection by using transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsies as the reference standard and to determine the potential ability of MP MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board exemption was granted by the local research ethics committee for this retrospective study. Included were 64 men (mean age, 62 years [range, 40-76]; mean prostate-specific antigen, 8.2 ng/mL [8.2 μg/L] [range, 2.1-43 ng/mL]), 51 with biopsy-proved cancer and 13 suspected of having clinically significant cancer that was biopsy negative or without prior biopsy. MP MR imaging included T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging (1.5 T, pelvic phased-array coil). Three radiologists independently reviewed images and were blinded to results of biopsy. Two-by-two tables were derived by using sectors of analysis of four quadrants, two lobes, and one whole prostate. Primary target definition for clinically significant disease necessary to be present within a sector of analysis on TTPM for that sector to be deemed positive was set at Gleason score of 3+4 or more and/or cancer core length involvement of 4 mm or more. Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated to determine ability of MP MR imaging to rule out cancer. Specificity, positive predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, accuracy (overall fraction correct), and area under receiver operating characteristic curves were also calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent (71 of 256) of sectors had clinically significant cancer by primary endpoint definition. For primary endpoint definition (≥ 4 mm and/or Gleason score ≥ 3+4), sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratios were 58%-73%, 84%-89%, and 0.3-0.5, respectively. Specificity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratios were 71%-84%, 49%-63%, and 2.-3.44, respectively. Area under the curve values were 0.73-0.84. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that MP MR imaging has a high negative predictive value to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer and may potentially have clinical use in diagnostic pathways of men at risk

MRI of the kidney—state of the art

Ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) are modalities of first choice in renal imaging. Until now, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has mainly been used as a problem-solving technique. MRI has the advantage of superior soft-tissue contrast, which provides a powerful tool in the detection and characterization of renal lesions. The MRI features of common and less common renal lesions are discussed as well as the evaluation of the spread of malignant lesions and preoperative assessment. MR urography technique and applications are discussed as well as the role of MRI in the evaluation of potential kidney donors. Furthermore the advances in functional MRI of the kidney are highlighted

Proceedings of the International Cancer Imaging Society (ICIS) 16th Annual Teaching Course

Table of contents O1 Tumour heterogeneity: what does it mean? Dow-Mu Koh O2 Skeletal sequelae in adult survivors of childhood cancer Sue Creviston Kaste O3 Locoregional effects of breast cancer treatment Sarah J Vinnicombe O4 Imaging of cancer therapy-induced CNS toxicity Giovanni Morana, Andrea Rossi O5 Screening for lung cancer Christian J. Herold O6Risk stratification of lung nodules Theresa C. McLoud O7 PET imaging of pulmonary nodules Kirk A Frey O8 Transarterial tumour therapy Bernhard Gebauer O9 Interventional radiology in paediatric oncology Derek Roebuck O10 Image guided prostate interventions Jurgen J. Fütterer O11 Imaging cancer predisposition syndromes Alexander J. Towbin O12Chest and chest wall masses Thierry AG Huisman O13 Abdominal masses: good or bad? Anne MJB Smets O14 Hepatobiliary MR contrast: enhanced liver MRI for HCC diagnosis and management Giovanni Morana O15 Role of US elastography and multimodality fusion for managing patients with chronic liver disease and HCC Jeong Min Lee O16 Opportunities and challenges in imaging metastatic disease Hersh Chandarana O17 Diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and follow-up of lymphoma Marius E. Mayerhoefer, Markus Raderer, Alexander Haug O18 Managing high-risk and advanced prostate cancer Matthias Eiber O19 Immunotherapy: imaging challenges Bernhard Gebauer O20 RECIST and RECIST 1.1 Andrea Rockall O21 Challenges of RECIST in oncology imaging basics for the trainee and novice Aslam Sohaib O22 Lymphoma: PET for interim and end of treatment response assessment: a users’ guide to the Deauville Score Victoria S Warbey O23 Available resources Hebert Alberto Vargas O24 ICIS e-portal and the online learning community Dow-Mu Koh O25 Benign lesions that mimic pancreatic cancer Jay P Heiken O26 Staging and reporting pancreatic malignancies Isaac R Francis, Mahmoud, M Al-Hawary, Ravi K Kaza O27 Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm Giovanni Morana O28 Cystic pancreatic tumours Mirko D’Onofrio O29 Diffusion-weighted imaging of head and neck tumours Harriet C. Thoeny O30 Radiation injury in the head and neck Ann D King O31 PET/MR of paediatric brain tumours Giovanni Morana, Arnoldo Piccardo, Maria Luisa Garrè, Andrea Rossi O32 Structured reporting and beyond Hebert Alberto Vargas O33 Massachusetts General Hospital experience with structured reporting Theresa C. McLoud O34 The oncologist’s perspective: what the oncologist needs to know Nick Reed O35 Towards the cure of all children with cancer: global initiatives in pediatric oncology Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo O36 Multiparametric imaging of renal cancers Hersh Chandarana O37 Linking imaging features of renal disease and their impact on management strategies Hebert Alberto Vargas O38 Adrenals, retroperitoneum and peritoneum Isaac R Francis, Ashish P Wasnik O39 Lung and pleura Stefan Diederich O40 Advances in MRI Jurgen J. Fütterer O41 Advances in molecular imaging Wim J.G. Oyen O42 Incorporating advanced imaging, impact on treatment selection and patient outcome Cheng Lee Chaw, Nicholas van As S1 Combining ADC-histogram features improves performance of MR diffusion-weighted imaging for Lymph node characterisation in cervical cancer Igor Vieira, Frederik De Keyzer, Elleke Dresen, Sileny Han, Ignace Vergote, Philippe Moerman, Frederic Amant, Michel Koole, Vincent Vandecaveye S2 Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for surgical planning in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases R Dresen, S De Vuysere, F De Keyzer, E Van Cutsem, A D’Hoore, A Wolthuis, V Vandecaveye S3 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extra capsular extension of prostate cancer. P. Pricolo ([email protected]), S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia S4 Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT – are management studies sufficient as surrogate for patient outcome? C. Pfannenberg, B. Gückel, SC Schüle, AC Müller, S. Kaufmann, N. Schwenzer, M. Reimold,C. la Fougere, K. Nikolaou, P. Martus S5 Heterogeneity of treatment response in skeletal metastases from breast cancer with 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET GJ Cook, GK Azad, BP Taylor, M Siddique, J John, J Mansi, M Harries, V Goh S6 Accuracy of suspicious breast imaging—can we tell the patient? S Seth, R Burgul, A Seth S7 Measurement method of tumour volume changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy affects ability to predict pathological response S Waugh, N Muhammad Gowdh, C Purdie, A Evans, E Crowe, A Thompson, S Vinnicombe S8 Diagnostic yield of CT IVU in haematuria screening F. Arfeen, T. Campion, E. Goldstraw S9 Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: preliminary results D’Onofrio M, Ciaravino V, Crosara S, De Robertis R, Pozzi Mucelli R S10 Iodine maps from dual energy CT improve detection of metastases in staging examinations of melanoma patients M. Uhrig, D. Simons, H. Schlemmer S11Can contrast enhanced CT predict pelvic nodal status in malignant melanoma of the lower limb? Kate Downey S12 Current practice in the investigation for suspected Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes (PNS) and positive malignancy yield. S Murdoch, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P1 Technical success and efficacy of Pulmonary Radiofrequency ablation: an analysis of 207 ablations S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P2 Lesion control and patient outcome: prospective analysis of radiofrequency abaltion in pulmonary colorectal cancer metastatic disease S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P3 Hepatocellular carcinoma in a post-TB patient: case of tropical infections and oncologic imaging challenges TM Mutala, AO Odhiambo, N Harish P4 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer P. Pricolo, S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia P5 What a difference a decade makes; comparison of lung biopsies in Glasgow 2005 and 2015 M. Hall, M. Sproule, S. Sheridan P6 Solid pseudopapillary tumour of pancreas: imaging features of a rare neoplasm KY Thein, CH Tan, YL Thian, CM Ho P7 MDCT - pathological correlation in colon adenocarcinoma staging: preliminary experience S De Luca, C Carrera, V Blanchet, L Alarcón, E Eyheremnedy P8 Image guided biopsy of thoracic masses and reduction of pneumothorax risk: 25 years experience B K Choudhury, K Bujarbarua, G Barman P9 Tumour heterogeneity analysis of 18F-FDG-PET for characterisation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis-1 GJ Cook, E Lovat, M Siddique, V Goh, R Ferner, VS Warbey P10 Impact of introduction of vacuum assisted excision (VAE) on screen detected high risk breast lesions L Potti, B Kaye, A Beattie, K Dutton P11 Can we reduce prevalent recall rate in breast screening? AA Seth, F Constantinidis, H Dobson P12 How to reduce prevalent recall rate? Identifying mammographic lesions with low Positive Predictive Value (PPV) AA Seth ([email protected]), F Constantinidis, H Dobson P13 Behaviour of untreated pulmonary thrombus in oncology patients diagnosed with incidental pulmonary embolism on CT R. Bradley, G. Bozas, G. Avery, A. Stephens, A. Maraveyas P14 A one-stop lymphoma biopsy service – is it possible? S Bhuva, CA Johnson, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P15 Changes in the new TNM classification for lung cancer (8th edition, effective January 2017) LE Quint, RM Reddy, GP Kalemkerian P16 Cancer immunotherapy: a review of adequate imaging assessment G González Zapico, E Gainza Jauregui, R Álvarez Francisco, S Ibáñez Alonso, I Tavera Bahillo, L Múgica Álvarez P17 Succinate dehydrogenase mutations and their associated tumours O Francies, R Wheeler, L Childs, A Adams, A Sahdev P18 Initial experience in the usefulness of dual energy technique in the abdomen SE De Luca, ME Casalini Vañek, MD Pascuzzi, T Gillanders, PM Ramos, EP Eyheremendy P19 Recognising the serious complication of Richter’s transformation in CLL patients C Stove, M Digby P20 Body diffusion-weighted MRI in oncologic practice: truths, tricks and tips M. Nazar, M. Wirtz, MD. Pascuzzi, F. Troncoso, F. Saguier, EP. Eyheremendy P21 Methotrexate-induced leukoencephalopathy in paediatric ALL Patients D.J. Quint, L. Dang, M. Carlson, S. Leber, F. Silverstein P22 Pitfalls in oncology CT reporting. A pictorial review R Rueben, S Viswanathan P23 Imaging of perineural extension in head and neck tumours B Nazir, TH Teo, JB Khoo P24 MRI findings of molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a pictorial primer K Sharma, N Gupta, B Mathew, T Jeyakumar, K Harkins P25 When cancer can’t wait! A pictorial review of oncological emergencies K Sharma, B Mathew, N Gupta, T Jeyakumar, S Joshua P26 MRI of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: an approach to interpretation D Christodoulou, S Gourtsoyianni, A Jacques, N Griffin, V Goh P27 Gynaecological cancers in pregnancy: a review of imaging CA Johnson, J Lee P28 Suspected paraneoplastic neurological syndromes - review of published recommendations to date, with proposed guideline/flowchart JA Goodfellow, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P29 Multi-parametric MRI of the pelvis for suspected local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy R Bradley P30 Utilisation of PI-RADS version 2 in multi-parametric MRI of the prostate; 12-months experience R Bradley P31 Radiological assessment of the post-chemotherapy liver A Yong, S Jenkins, G Joseph P32 Skeletal staging with MRI in breast cancer – what the radiologist needs to know S Bhuva, K Partington P33 Perineural spread of lympoma: an educational review of an unusual distribution of disease CA Johnson, S Bhuva, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P34 Visually isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Diagnostic imaging tools. C Carrera, A Zanfardini, S De Luca, L Alarcón, V Blanchet, EP Eyheremendy P35 Imaging of larynx cancer: when is CT, MRI or FDG PET/CT the best test? K Cavanagh, E Lauhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134651/1/40644_2016_Article_79.pd

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging

Characterization of adnexal mass lesions on MR imaging. OBJECTIVE. The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of MR imaging in the detection and characterization of adnexal mass lesions and to determine which imaging features are predictive of malignancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We prospectively performed MR imaging in 104 patients (age range, 19-87 years; mean age, 50 years) with clinically or sonographically detected complex adnexal masses. We used a 1.5- T unit to perform T1-, T2-, and fat-suppressed T1-weighted sequences before and after IV injection of gadolinium. The adnexal lesions were examined for several features including size, shape, character (solid-cystic), vegetation, signal intensity, and enhancement. Secondary signs such as ascites, peritoneal disease, and lymphadenopathy were noted. We compared the imaging features with the surgical and pathologic findings. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed on all MR imaging features. RESULTS. A total of 163 lesions-94 benign and 69 malignant lesions-were examined. On MR imaging, 95% (155/163) of the lesions were detected. The overall accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy was 91%. On univariate analysis, the imaging features associated with malignancy were a solid-cystic lesion, irregularity, and vegetation on the wall and septum in a cystic lesion, the large size of the lesion, an early enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images, and the presence of ascites, peritoneal disease, or adenopathy. On multiple logistic regression analysis, ascites and vegetation in a cystic lesion were the factors most significantly indicative of malignancy. CONCLUSION. MR imaging is highly accurate in the characterization of adnexal mass lesions, and the best predictors of malignancy are vegetation in a cystic lesion and ascites

What Burden of Prostate Cancer Can Radiologists Rule Out on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Sensitivity Analysis Based on Varying the Target Condition in Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the minimum disease burden of prostate cancer at which multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) optimally performs. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, 64 men underwent multiparametric MRI imaging (index test) followed by template prostate mapping biopsy (reference test). Three radiologists independently reported each quadrant of every prostate on a scale of 1 to 5: highly likely benign, likely benign, equivocal, likely malignant, highly likely malignant (≥3 or ≥4 was considered positive). There were 256 prostate sectors; bootstrapping adjustment was used to account for nonindependence. The target condition indicating cancer on biopsies was varied by changing the maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and total cancer core length (TCCL) within each sector from 1 mm to 10 mm. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for each MCCL and TCCL. Gleason ≤3+3 and Gleason ≥3+4 cancers were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Mean age was 62 years (range, 40-76 years), and mean prostate-specific antigen level was 8.2 μg/L (range, 2.1-43 μg/L). Fifty percent of quadrants (127 of 256) had prostate cancer, of which 65% (83 of 127) were Gleason ≤3+3. For Gleason ≤3+3, multiparametric MRI had an NPV of ≥95% at an MCCL of ≥5 mm and at a TCCL of ≥7 mm (MRI score ≥3). For Gleason ≥3+4, an NPV of ≥95% was seen at an MCCL of ≥5 mm (MRI score ≥3) and TCCL ≥6 mm. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MRI may allow areas of the prostate which test negative to avoid biopsy. Whether multiparametric MRI can be used as a "triage" test before the first biopsy requires results from ongoing prospective validating cohort studies