Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To develop nomograms that predict the probability of overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason >/=7) on MRI targeted, and combined MRI-targeted and systematic, prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2012 to August 2014, MR-US fusion targeted prostate biopsy was performed on 464 men with suspicious regions identified on pre-biopsy 3T MRI along with systematic 12 core biopsy. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate predictors of overall and clinically significant PCa, and corresponding nomograms were generated for men who were not previously biopsied or had one or more prior negative biopsies. Models were created with 70% of a randomly selected training sample and bias-corrected using bootstrap resampling. The models were then validated with the remaining 30% testing sample pool. RESULTS: A total of 459 patients were included for analysis (median age 66 years, PSA 5.2 ng/ml, prostate volume 49 cc). Independent predictors of PCa on targeted and systematic prostate biopsy were PSA density, age, and MRI suspicion score. PCa probability nomograms were generated for each cohort using the predictors. Bias-corrected areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves for overall and clinically significant PCa detection were 0.82 (0.78) and 0.91 (0.84) for men without prior biopsy and 0.76 (0.65) and 0.86 (0.87) for men with a prior negative biopsy in the training (testing) samples. CONCLUSION: PSA density, age, and MRI suspicion score predict prostate cancer on combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. Our generated nomograms demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy and may further aid in the decision to perform biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of PCa.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm2) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis. RESULTS: For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS /= 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Radiologist members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and urologist members of the Society of Urologic Oncology received an electronic survey regarding prostate MRI reporting. RESULTS: The response rate was 12% (135/1155) for Society of Abdominal Radiology and 8% (54/663) for Society of Urologic Oncology members. Most respondents in both specialties prefer Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 84%), indicate that it is used at their institution (radiologists, 84%; urologists, 78%), understand its implications for patient care (radiologists, 89%; urologists, 71%), and agree that radiologists apply PI-RADSv2 categories correctly (radiologists, 57%; urologists, 61%). Both specialties agreed regarding major barriers to PI-RADSv2 adoption: radiologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 51%; urologists, 51%), urologist inexperience using PI-RADSv2 (radiologists, 46%; urologists, 51%), and lack of standardized templates (radiologists, 47%; urologists, 52%). The specialties disagreed (p