Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the Prostate: Recommendations from an International Working Group.

BACKGROUND A systematic literature review of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy demonstrates poor adherence to the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) recommendations for the full and transparent reporting of diagnostic studies. OBJECTIVE To define and recommend Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Each member of a panel of 23 experts in urology, radiology, histopathology, and methodology used the RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to score a 258-statement premeeting questionnaire. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face meeting, and each statement was rescored after group discussion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Measures of agreement and consensus were calculated for each statement. The most important statements, based on group median score, the degree of group consensus, and the content of the group discussion, were used to create a checklist of reporting criteria (the START checklist). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The strongest recommendations were to report histologic results of standard and targeted cores separately using Gleason score and maximum cancer core length. A table comparing detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant disease by targeted and standard approaches should also be used. It was recommended to report the recruitment criteria for MRI-targeted biopsy, prior biopsy status of the population, a brief description of the MRI sequences, MRI reporting method, radiologist experience, and image registration technique. There was uncertainty about which histologic criteria constitute clinically significant cancer when the prostate is sampled using MRI-targeted biopsy, and it was agreed that a new definition of clinical significance in this setting needed to be derived in future studies. CONCLUSIONS Use of the START checklist would improve the quality of reporting in MRI-targeted biopsy studies and facilitate a comparison between standard and MRI-targeted approaches.

A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion and Visual Estimation in the Performance of MR-targeted Prostate Biopsy: The PROFUS Trial

BACKGROUND Increasing evidence supports the use of magnetic resonance (MR)-targeted prostate biopsy. The optimal method for such biopsy remains undefined, however. OBJECTIVE To prospectively compare targeted biopsy outcomes between MR imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion and visual targeting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From June 2012 to March 2013, prospective targeted biopsy was performed in 125 consecutive men with suspicious regions identified on prebiopsy 3-T MRI consisting of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic-contrast enhanced sequences. INTERVENTION Two MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted cores per target were performed by one operator using the ei-Nav|Artemis system. Targets were then blinded, and a second operator took two visually targeted cores and a 12-core biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Biopsy information yield was compared between targeting techniques and to 12-core biopsy. Results were analyzed using the McNemar test. Multivariate analysis was performed using binomial logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Among 172 targets, fusion biopsy detected 55 (32.0%) cancers and 35 (20.3%) Gleason sum ≥7 cancers compared with 46 (26.7%) and 26 (15.1%), respectively, using visual targeting (p=0.1374, p=0.0523). Fusion biopsy provided informative nonbenign histology in 77 targets compared with 60 by visual (p=0.0104). Targeted biopsy detected 75.0% of all clinically significant cancers and 86.4% of Gleason sum ≥7 cancers detected on standard biopsy. On multivariate analysis, fusion performed best among smaller targets. The study is limited by lack of comparison with whole-gland specimens and sample size. Furthermore, cancer detection on visual targeting is likely higher than in community settings, where experience with this technique may be limited. CONCLUSIONS Fusion biopsy was more often histologically informative than visual targeting but did not increase cancer detection. A trend toward increased detection with fusion biopsy was observed across all study subsets, suggesting a need for a larger study size. Fusion targeting improved accuracy for smaller lesions. Its use may reduce the learning curve necessary for visual targeting and improve community adoption of MR-targeted biopsy.

Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales.

PURPOSE To compare the recently proposed Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale that incorporates fixed criteria and a standard Likert scale based on overall impression in prostate cancer localization using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seventy patients who underwent 3-T pelvic MR imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, with a pelvic phased-array coil before radical prostatectomy were included. Three radiologists, each with 6 years of experience, independently scored 18 regions (12 peripheral zone [PZ], six transition zone [TZ]) using PI-RADS (range, scores 3-15) and Likert (range, scores 1-5) scales. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to compare scales for detection of tumors larger than 3 mm in maximal diameter at prostatectomy. RESULTS Maximal accuracy was achieved with score thresholds of 8 and higher and of 3 and higher for PI-RADS and Likert scales, respectively. At these thresholds, in the PZ, similar accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale and the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (89.0% vs 88.2%, P = .223) and radiologist 3 (88.5% vs 88.2%, P = .739) and greater accuracy was achieved with the PI-RADS scale than the Likert scale for radiologist 2 (89.6% vs 87.1%, P = .008). In the TZ, accuracy was lower with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (70.0% vs 87.1%, P < .001), radiologist 2 (87.6% vs 92.6%, P = .002), and radiologist 3 (82.9% vs 91.2%, P < .001). For tumors with Gleason score of at least 7, sensitivity was higher with the PI-RADS scale than with the Likert scale for radiologist 1 (88.6% vs 82.6%, P = .032), and sensitivity was similar for radiologist 2 (78.0% vs 76.5, P = .467) and radiologist 3 (77.3% vs 81.1%, P = .125). CONCLUSION Radiologists performed well with both PI-RADS and Likert scales for tumor localization, although, in the TZ, performance was better with the Likert scale than the PI-RADS scale. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122233/-/DC1.

Free-breathing radial 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient echo sequence: A viable alternative for contrast-enhanced liver imaging in patients unable to suspend respiration

Objective:To compare free-breathing radially sampled 3D fat suppressed T1-weighted gradient-echo acquisitions (radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) with breath-hold (BH) and free-breathing conventional (rectilinearly sampled k-space) VIBE acquisitions for postcontrast imaging of the liver. Materials and Methods:Eighteen consecutive patients referred for clinically indicated liver magnetic resonance imaging were imaged at 3 T. Three minutes after a single dose of gadolinium contrast injection, free-breathing radial VIBE, BH VIBE, and free-breathing VIBE with 4 averages were acquired in random order with matching sequence parameters. Radial VIBE was acquired with the “stack-of-stars” scheme, which uses conventional sampling in the slice direction and radial sampling in-plane. All image data sets were evaluated independently by 3 radiologists blinded to patient and sequence information. Each reader scored the following parameters: overall image quality, respiratory motion artifact, pulsation artifact, liver edge sharpness, and hepatic vessel clarity using a 5-point scale, with the highest score indicating the most optimum examination. Mixed model analysis of variance was used to compare sequences in terms of each measure of image quality. Results:When scores were averaged over readers, there was no statistically significant difference between radial VIBE and BH VIBE regarding overall image quality (P = 0.1015), respiratory motion artifact (P = 1.0), and liver edge sharpness (P = 0.2955). Radial VIBE demonstrated significantly lower pulsation artifact (P < 0.0001), but had lower hepatic vessel clarity (P = 0.0176), when compared with BH VIBE. Radial VIBE had significantly higher image quality scores for all parameters when compared with free-breathing VIBE (P < 0.0001). Acquisition time for BH VIBE was 14 seconds and that of free-breathing radial VIBE and conventional VIBE with multiple averages was 56 seconds each. Conclusion:Radial VIBE can be performed during free breathing for contrast-enhanced imaging of the liver with comparable image quality to BH VIBE. However, further work is necessary to shorten the acquisition time to perform dynamic imaging.

Prostate Cancer: Feasibility and Preliminary Experience of a Diffusional Kurtosis Model for Detection and Assessment of Aggressiveness of Peripheral Zone Cancer

PURPOSE To assess the feasibility of diffusional kurtosis (DK) imaging for distinguishing benign from malignant regions, as well as low- from high-grade malignant regions, within the peripheral zone (PZ) of the prostate in comparison with standard diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study and waived informed consent. Forty-seven patients with prostate cancer underwent 3-T magnetic resonance imaging by using a pelvic phased-array coil and DW imaging (maximum b value, 2000 sec/mm2). Parametric maps were obtained for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC); the metric DK (K), which represents non-Gaussian diffusion behavior; and corrected diffusion (D) that accounts for this non-Gaussianity. Two radiologists reviewed these maps and measured ADC, D, and K in sextants positive for cancer at biopsy. Data were analyzed by using mixed-model analysis of variance and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS Seventy sextants exhibited a Gleason score of 6; 51 exhibited a Gleason score of 7 or 8. K was significantly greater in cancerous sextants than in benign PZ (0.96±0.24 vs 0.57±0.07, P<.001), as well as in cancerous sextants with higher rather than lower Gleason score (1.05±0.26 vs 0.89±0.20, P<.001). K showed significantly greater sensitivity for differentiating cancerous sextants from benign PZ than ADC or D (93.3% vs 78.5% and 83.5%, respectively; P<.001), with equal specificity (95.7%, P>.99). K exhibited significantly greater sensitivity for differentiating sextants with low- and high-grade cancer than ADC or D (68.6% vs 51.0% and 49.0%, respectively; P≤.004) but with decreased specificity (70.0% vs 81.4% and 82.9%, respectively; P≤.023). K had significantly greater area under the curve for differentiating sextants with low- and high-grade cancer than ADC (0.70 vs 0.62, P=.010). Relative contrast between cancerous sextants and benign PZ was significantly greater for D or K than ADC (0.25±0.14 and 0.24±0.13, respectively, vs 0.18±0.10; P<.001). CONCLUSION Preliminary findings suggest increased value for DK imaging compared with standard DW imaging in prostate cancer assessment.

Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla.

To compare single‐shot echo‐planar imaging (SS EPI) diffusion‐weighted MRI (DWI) of abdominal organs between 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T in healthy volunteers in terms of image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, and ADC reproducibility.

MRI Features of Renal Oncocytoma and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to retrospectively describe the MRI features of the pathologically related entities renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-eight cases of histologically proven renal oncocytoma and 15 of chromophobe RCC evaluated with preoperative MRI from January 2003 through June 2009 at our institution were independently reviewed for an array of MRI features by two radiologists blinded to the final histopathologic diagnosis. These features were tabulated and compared between chromophobe RCC and renal oncocytoma by use of the Mann-Whitney test and binary logistic regression. RESULTS Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC showed no significant difference in size or any of 16 qualitative imaging features (p = 0.0842-1.0, reader 1; p = 0.0611-1.0, reader 2). Microscopic fat, hemorrhage, cysts, infiltrative margins, perinephric fat invasion, renal vein invasion, enhancement homogeneity, and hypervascularity were each observed in less than 20% of cases by both readers. A central scar and segmental enhancement inversion (a recently described finding in which early contrast-enhanced images show relatively more enhanced and less enhanced intralesional components with inversion of their relative enhancement on later images) were observed by both readers in at least 10% of cases of both renal oncocytoma and of chromophobe RCC with no significant difference between the two entities (p = 0.2092-0.2960). CONCLUSION We have presented the largest series to date of the MRI features of both renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. These related entities exhibited similar findings, and no MRI features were reliable in distinguishing between them.

Free-breathing contrast-enhanced multiphase MRI of the liver using a combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling.

ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to develop a new method for free-breathing contrast-enhanced multiphase liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using a combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and radial k-space sampling and to demonstrate the feasibility of this method by performing image quality comparison with breath-hold cartesian T1-weighted (conventional) postcontrast acquisitions in healthy participants. Materials and MethodsThis Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant prospective study received approval from the institutional review board. Eight participants underwent 3 separate contrast-enhanced fat-saturated T1-weighted gradient-echo MRI examinations with matching imaging parameters: conventional breath-hold examination with cartesian k-space sampling volumetric interpolate breath hold examination (BH-VIBE) and free-breathing acquisitions with interleaved angle-bisection and continuous golden-angle radial sampling schemes. Interleaved angle-bisection and golden-angle data from each 100 consecutive spokes were reconstructed using a combination of compressed sensing and parallel imaging (interleaved-angle radial sparse parallel [IARASP] and golden-angle radial sparse parallel [GRASP]) to generate multiple postcontrast phases.Arterial- and venous-phase BH-VIBE, IARASP, and GRASP reconstructions were evaluated by 2 radiologists in a blinded fashion. The readers independently assessed quality of enhancement (QE), overall image quality (IQ), and other parameters of image quality on a 5-point scale, with the highest score indicating the most desirable examination. Mixed model analysis of variance was used to compare each measure of image quality. ResultsImages of BH-VIBE and GRASP had significantly higher QE and IQ values compared with IARASP for both phases (P < 0.05). The differences in QE between BH-VIBE and GRASP for the arterial and venous phases were not significant (P > 0.05). Although GRASP had lower IQ score compared with BH-VIBE for the arterial (3.9 vs 4.8; P < 0.0001) and venous (4.2 vs 4.8; P = 0.005) phases, GRASP received IQ scores of 3 or more in all participants, which was consistent with acceptable or better diagnostic image quality. ConclusionContrast-enhanced multiphase liver MRI of diagnostic quality can be performed during free breathing using a combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling.

Utility of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Distinguishing Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma of Low and High Nuclear Grade

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to assess the utility of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in distinguishing low-grade and high-grade clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS The cases of 57 patients with pathologically proven ccRCC who underwent preoperative MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, were retrospectively assessed. ADC values were obtained from ADC maps calculated using b-value combinations of 0 and 400 s/mm² and of 0 and 800 s/mm² (hereafter referred to as ADC-400 and ADC-800). Lesions were also evaluated for an array of conventional MRI features. A single expert uropathologist reviewed all slides to determine nuclear grade. The utility of ADC for detecting high-grade ccRCC, alone and in combination with conventional MRI features, was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and binary logistic regression. RESULTS ADC-400 and ADC-800 were significantly lower among high-grade than among low-grade ccRCC (2.24 ± 0.50 mm²/s vs 1.59 ± 0.57 mm²/s for ADC-400, p < 0.001; 1.85 ± 0.40 mm²/s vs 1.28 ± 0.48 mm²/s for ADC-800; p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for identifying high-grade ccRCC using ADC-400 and ADC-800 was 0.801 and 0.824 respectively (p = 0.606), with optimal thresholds, sensitivity, and specificity as follows: ADC-400: 2.17 mm²/s, 88.5%, 64.5% and ADC-800: 1.20 mm²/s, 65.4%, 96.0%. Using multivariate logistic regression, only necrosis (p = 0.0229) and perinephric fat invasion (p = 0.0160) were retained among conventional imaging features as independent risk factors for high-grade ccRCC. The accuracy of the logistic regression model for predicting high-grade ccRCC was significantly improved by inclusion of either ADC-400 (p = 0.0143) or ADC-800 (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION ADC is significantly lower in high-grade ccRCC compared with low-grade ccRCC and increases the accuracy for detecting high-grade ccRCC compared with conventional MRI features alone.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR

PURPOSE After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review. RESULTS The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results. CONCLUSIONS Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.