Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the presence of an ultrasound hypoechoic region at the site of a MRI region of interest (ROI) results in improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection and predicts clinically significant PCa on MRI - ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Between July 2011 and June 2017, 1058 men who underwent MRF-TB and systematic biopsy by a single surgeon were prospectively entered into an IRB-approved database. MRI ROI were identified and scored for suspicion by a single radiologist. Each MRI ROI was prospectively evaluated for presence of a hypoechoic region at the site (ROI-HyR) by the surgeon and graded as 0,1,2 representing none, poorly demarcated, or well demarcated, respectively. Interaction of MRI suspicion score (mSS) and US grade (USG), and prediction of cancer detection rate (CDR) by USG, was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS:For 672 men, overall and Gleason Score (GS)≥7 CDR were 61.2% and 39.6%, respectively. CDR for USG 0,1,2 were 46.2%, 58.6%, 76.0% (p<0.001) for any cancer and 18.7%, 35.2%, 61.1% (p<0.001) for GS≥7, respectively. For MRF-TB only, GS≥7 CDR for USG 0,1,2 was 12.8%, 25.7%, 52.0% (p<0.001), respectively. On univariate analysis, among mSS 2-4, USG was predictive of GS≥7 CDR. Multivariable regression analysis revealed USG, PSAD, and mSS were predictive of GS≥7 PCa on MRF-TB. CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound findings at the site of MRI ROI independently predict the likelihood of GS≥7 PCa, as men with a well demarcated ROI-HyR at the time of MRF-TB have a higher risk than men without.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect on reader performance of an interactive case-based online tutorial for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation using Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS). METHODS:An educational website was developed incorporating scrollable multiparametric prostate MRI examinations with annotated solutions based on PI-RADS version 2. Three second-year radiology residents evaluated a separate set of 60 prostate MRI examinations both before and after review of the online case material, identifying and scoring dominant lesions. These 60 examinations included 30 benign cases and 30 cases with a dominant lesion demonstrating Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor on fusion-targeted biopsy. The readers' pooled performance was compared between the 2 sessions using logistic regression and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS:All readers completed the online material within four-hours. Review of the online material significantly improved sensitivity (from 57.8%-73.3%, P = 0.003) and negative predictive value (from 69.2%-78.2%, P = 0.049), but not specificity (from 70.0%-67.8%, P = 0.692) or positive predictive value (from 59.6%-64.7%, P = 0.389). Reader confidence (1-10 scale; 10 = maximal confidence) also improved significantly (from 5.6 ± 2.7 to 6.3 ± 2.6, P = 0.026). However, accuracy of assigned PI-RADS scores did not improve significantly (from 45.5%-53.3%, P = 0.149). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:An online interactive case-based website in prostate MRI interpretation improved novice readers' sensitivity and negative predictive value for tumor detection, as well as readers' confidence. This online material may serve as a resource complementing existing traditional methods of instruction by providing a more flexible educational experience among a larger volume of learners. However, further more targeted educational initiatives regarding the proper application of PI-RADS remain warranted.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Recent advances have led to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone or with fusion to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Our group sought to develop consensus recommendations regarding MRI-guided prostate biopsy based on currently available literature and expert opinion. METHODS:The published literature on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy was reviewed using standard search terms and synthesized and analyzed by four different subgroups from among the authors. The literature was grouped into four categories-MRI-guided biopsy platforms, robotic MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, template mapping biopsy and transrectal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. Consensus recommendations were developed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS:There is limited high level evidence available on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy. MRI guidance with or without TRUS fusion can lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, help identify high-risk (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) cancers that might have been missed on standard TRUS biopsy and identify cancers in the anterior prostate. There is no apparent significant difference between MRI biopsy platforms. Template mapping biopsy is perhaps the most accurate method of assessing volume and grade of tumor but is accompanied by higher incidence of side effects compared to TRUS biopsy. CONCLUSIONS:Magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies are feasible and better than traditional ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting high-risk prostate cancer and anterior lesions. Judicious use of MRI-guided biopsy could enhance diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while limiting diagnosis of insignificant cancer.

BACKGROUND:Patient-specific 3D models are being used increasingly in medicine for many applications including surgical planning, procedure rehearsal, trainee education, and patient education. To date, experiences on the use of 3D models to facilitate patient understanding of their disease and surgical plan are limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate in the context of renal and prostate cancer the impact of using 3D printed and augmented reality models for patient education. METHODS:Patients with MRI-visible prostate cancer undergoing either robotic assisted radical prostatectomy or focal ablative therapy or patients with renal masses undergoing partial nephrectomy were prospectively enrolled in this IRB approved study (n = 200). Patients underwent routine clinical imaging protocols and were randomized to receive pre-operative planning with imaging alone or imaging plus a patient-specific 3D model which was either 3D printed, visualized in AR, or viewed in 3D on a 2D computer monitor. 3D uro-oncologic models were created from the medical imaging data. A 5-point Likert scale survey was administered to patients prior to the surgical procedure to determine understanding of the cancer and treatment plan. If randomized to receive a pre-operative 3D model, the survey was completed twice, before and after viewing the 3D model. In addition, the cohort that received 3D models completed additional questions to compare usefulness of the different forms of visualization of the 3D models. Survey responses for each of the 3D model groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxan rank-sum tests. RESULTS:All 200 patients completed the survey after reviewing their cases with their surgeons using imaging only. 127 patients completed the 5-point Likert scale survey regarding understanding of disease and surgical procedure twice, once with imaging and again after reviewing imaging plus a 3D model. Patients had a greater understanding using 3D printed models versus imaging for all measures including comprehension of disease, cancer size, cancer location, treatment plan, and the comfort level regarding the treatment plan (range 4.60-4.78/5 vs. 4.06-4.49/5, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:All types of patient-specific 3D models were reported to be valuable for patient education. Out of the three advanced imaging methods, the 3D printed models helped patients to have the greatest understanding of their anatomy, disease, tumor characteristics, and surgical procedure.