Christopher S. Lim

Whole-Tumor Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram and Texture Analysis to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Intermediate-Risk 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to evaluate whole-lesion quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for the prediction of Gleason score (GS) upgrading in 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-four patients with GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer diagnosed at systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy underwent 3-T MRI and radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2014. A blinded radiologist contoured dominant tumors on ADC maps using histopathologic correlation. The whole-lesion mean ADC, ADC ratio (normalized to peripheral zone), ADC histogram, and texture analysis were compared between tumors with GS upgrading and those without GS upgrading using multivariate ROC analyses and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS Tumors were upgraded to GS 4 + 3 = 7 after RP in 26% (n = 14) of the 54 patients, and tumors were downgraded after RP in none of the patients. The mean ADC, ADC ratio, 10th-centile ADC, 25th-centile ADC, and 50th-centile ADC were similar between patients with GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumors (0.99 ± 0.22, 0.58 ± 0.15, 0.77 ± 0.31, 0.94 ± 0.28, and 1.15 ± 0.24, respectively) and patients with upgraded GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (1.02 ± 0.18, 0.55 ± 0.11, 0.71 ± 0.26, 0.89 ± 0.20, and 1.11 ± 0.16) (p > 0.05). Regression models combining texture features improved the prediction of GS upgrading. The combination of kurtosis, entropy, and skewness yielded an AUC of 0.76 (SE = 0.07) (p < 0.001), a sensitivity of 71%, and a specificity of 73%. The combination of kurtosis, heterogeneity, entropy, and skewness yielded an AUC of 0.77 (SE = 0.07) (p < 0.001), a sensitivity of 71%, and a specificity of 78%. CONCLUSION In this study, whole-lesion mean ADC, ADC ratio, and ADC histogram analysis were not predictive of pathologic upgrading of GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer after RP. ADC texture analysis improved accuracy.

Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma

INTRODUCTION To evaluate extra-prostatic extension (EPE) comparing PI-RADS to non-standardized reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS With IRB approval, 145 consecutive patients underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and multi-parametric (T2W+DWI+DCE) MRI between 2012 and 2013. Eighty patients (66.3% with EPE) were staged without PI-RADS and 65 patients (64.6% with EPE) were staged using a 5-point PI-RADS scoring system. Studies were reported by fellowship-trained radiologists in routine clinical practice. Individual PIRADS scores were assessed using ROC to determine the score which optimized sensitivity/specificity. Diagnostic accuracy for EPE was compared with/without PI-RADS using the McNemar test. Subgroup analysis by radiologist experience was performed using Spearman correlation and chi-square. RESULTS Area under ROC curve for EPE using PI-RADS was 0.62 and optimal sensitivity/specificity was achieved with PI-RADS score ≥ 3. Compared to non-standardized reporting, sensitivity for EPE improved with PI-RADS (59.5% [49.1-68.2] vs. 24.5% [16.7-31.2]), p=0.01; with no difference in specificity (68.0% [50.5-82.6]) vs. (75.0% [60.1-87.6]), p=0.06. Overall accuracy improved with PI-RADS (62.7% [49.6-73.6] vs. 42.0% [31.7-50.7%]), p=0.006. Diagnostic accuracy was better among experienced radiologists without PI-RADS (p=0.005); however, there was no difference in accuracy by reader experience using PI-RADS (p=0.24). CONCLUSION The PI-RADS criteria for EPE improves sensitivity without reducing specificity. PI-RADS may reduce differences in accuracy by reader experience.

Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI

To assesses the utility of a preparatory enema in the interpretation of prostate multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and MR volumetry as independent associative factors for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in prostatic carcinoma.

To assess mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and MR‐derived tumor volume (Vt) as associative factors for extra‐prostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa).

Magnetic resonance for radiotherapy management and treatment planning in prostatic carcinoma

MRI has an important role for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning in prostate cancer (PCa) providing accurate visualization of the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) and locoregional anatomy, assessment of local staging and depiction of implanted devices. MRI enables the radiation oncologist to optimize RT planning by better defining target tumour volumes (thereby increasing local tumour control), as well as decreasing morbidity (by minimizing the dose to adjacent normal structures). Using MRI, radiation oncologists can define the DIL for delivery of boost doses of RT using a variety of techniques including: stereotactic body radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton RT or brachytherapy to improve tumour control. Radiologists require a familiarity with the different RT methods used to treat PCa, as well as an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various MR pulse sequences available for RT planning in order to provide an optimal multidisciplinary RT treatment approach to PCa. Understanding the expected post-RT appearance of the prostate and typical characteristics of local tumour recurrence is also important because MRI is rapidly becoming an integral component for diagnosis, image-guided histological sampling and treatment planning in the setting of biochemical failure after RT or surgery.

Evaluation of MRI for diagnosis of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer: MRI for Diagnosis of Extraprostatic Extension

To assess the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer.

Prognostic value of Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI‐RADS) v. 2 assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy

To assess Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI‐RADS) v. 2 score 4/5 lesions compared to Gleason score (GS) and stage after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to validate the proposed 15‐mm size threshold that differentiates category 4 versus 5 lesions.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, Assessment Categories and Pathologic Outcomes in Patients With Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Biopsy

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to assess associations between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2), categories and the presence of a tumor with a Gleason score (GS) of 4 + 3 = 7 or greater or the presence of extraprostatic extension (EPE) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with a GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumor at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 81 men with GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy underwent multiparametric MRI and RP between 2012 and 2015. Two blinded radiologists assessed multiparametric MR images and assigned PI-RADSv2 assessment categories (categories 1-5) with the use of sector maps, which were compared with regard to the location of the tumor, the GS, and the presence of EPE at RP. Comparisons were performed between groups with the use of chi-square and multivariate analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using ROC curve analysis, and localization was compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS A total of 53.1% of men (43/81) had EPE, and 21.0% (17/81) had GS 4 + 3 = 7 prostate cancer after RP, whereas 2.5% of men (2/81) had their tumors downgraded to GS 3 + 3 = 6. No statistically significant difference in patient age, prostate specific antigen level, or clinical stage existed between groups (p > 0.05). PI-RADSv2 assessment categories were significantly higher for GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (p = 0.03). PI-RADSv2 showed moderate accuracy for the diagnosis of GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77), with a category of 4 or higher having a sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of 94.1% and 23.4%, respectively. No patient with a PI-RADSv2 category lower than 3 had a GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumor. Accuracy of tumor localization ranged from 86.4% to 92.6%, with 88.2% of errors (15/17) occurring in GS 3 + 3 = 6 or GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumors (p = 0.30). PI-RADSv2 categories were noted to be higher when EPE was present (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.43). CONCLUSION For GS 3 + 4 = 7 cancers detected at transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, higher PI-RADSv2 assessment categories are associated with upgrading to GS 4 + 3 = 7 cancer and with the presence of EPE after RP. A PI-RADSv2 score of 3 or higher was 100% sensitive for diagnosing GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors.

MRI assessment of pathological stage and surgical margins in anterior prostate cancer (APC) using subjective and quantitative analysis

To evaluate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and positive surgical margins (PSM) in anterior prostate cancer (APC).

Magnetic resonance enterography in post-operative inflammatory bowel disease.

ObjectiveTo describe the role of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and to review the expected post-operative appearance, as well as, potential surgical complications in this unique patient population.ConclusionMRE compares favorably to CT Enterography (CTE) in terms of overall diagnostic accuracy and may provide better functional assessment of the small bowel through cine-MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhancement. In the post-operative population, MRE provides critical information including: normal post-surgical anatomy, chronic strictures vs. active inflammation and disease/treatment-related complications. The post-operative IBD patient undergoes frequent repeated imaging and MRE may significantly reduce cumulative radiation dose while providing similar or improved diagnostic accuracy compared to CTE. MRE should be considered as an alternative imaging modality in this population.