Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement in volumes of prostate tumors determined on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and histologic assessment, using detailed software-assisted co-registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 37 patients who underwent 3T mpMRI (T2WI, DWI/ADC, DCE) were included. A radiologist traced the borders of suspicious lesions on T2WI and ADC and assigned a suspicion score (SS) from 2-5; a uro-pathologist traced borders of tumors on histopathologic photographs. Software was used to co-register MRI and 3D digital reconstructions of RP specimens and compute imaging and histopathologic volumes. Agreement in volumes between MRI and histology was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and stratified by tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Among 50 tumors, mean difference and 95% limits of agreement on MRI relative to histology were -32% (-128% to +65%) on T2WI and -47% (-143% to +49%) on ADC. For all tumor subsets, volume under-estimation was more marked on ADC maps (mean difference ranging from -57% to -16%) than T2WI (mean difference ranging from -45% to +2%). 95% limits of agreement were wide for all comparisons, with lower 95% limit ranging between -77% and -143% across assessments. Volume under-estimation was more marked for tumors with Gleason score >/=7 or MRI SS 4 or 5. CONCLUSION: Volume estimates of PCa using MRI tended to substantially under-estimate histopathologic volumes, with wide variability in extent of under-estimation across cases. These findings have implications for efforts to use MRI to guide risk assessment.

INTRODUCTION: To compare qualitative and quantitative imaging features from conventional and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detection of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes in bladder cancer patients undergoing cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients who had undergone cystectomy for bladder cancer with preoperative MRI with DWI sequence prior to surgery were included. Imaging features on conventional and DW-MRI were compared with histopathology at cystectomy. RESULTS: Nodal features associated with metastatic lymphadenopathy were short axis (AUC = 0.85, p < 0.001; when SA > 5 mm: sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 75%), long axis (AUC = 0.80, p < 0.001; when LA > 6 mm: sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 71%), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on DWI, normalized to muscle (AUC = 0.66, p = 0.113; when nADC < 1.35: sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 68%), and absence of fatty hilum on conventional imaging (AUC = 0.73, p = 0.012; when fatty hilum absent, sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 71%). ADC without normalization was not associated with metastasis (p = 0.303). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging findings from conventional MRI and DWI achieved reasonable accuracy for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in bladder cancer, although sensitivity was higher than specificity. A short axis greater than 5 mm on conventional MRI had the highest accuracy of any individual finding. When using DWI, normalization of ADC values to muscle ADC may improve diagnostic performance.

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.