Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To determine the associations of quantitative parameters derived from multiphase contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI), diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with clinico-histopathological prognostic factors, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS/METHODS:Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study of 49 patients (median age, 45 years) with histopathologically proven IB-IVB International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer who underwent pre-treatment pelvic MRI and whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT between February 2009 and May 2012. Maximum diameter (maxTD), percentage enhancement (PE) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) of the primary tumor were measured on MRI. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Correlations between imaging metrics and clinico-histopathological parameters including revised 2009 FIGO stage, tumor histology, grade and lymph node (LN) metastasis at diagnosis were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Cox modeling was used to determine associations with DFS and OS. RESULTS:Median follow-up was 17 months. 41 patients (83.6%) were alive. 8 patients (16.3%) died of disease. Progression/recurrence occurred in 17 patients (34.6%). Significant differences were observed in ADCmean, SUVmax, MTV and TLG according to FIGO stage (p<0.001-0.025). There were significant correlations between ADCmean, MTV, TLG and LN metastasis (p=0.017-0.032). SUVmax was not associated with LN metastasis. FIGO stage (p=0.017/0.033), LN metastases (p=0.001/0.020), ADCmean (p=0.007/0.020) and MTV (p=0.014/0.026) were adverse predictors of both DFS/OS. maxTD (p=0.005) and TLG (p=0.024) were adverse predictors of DFS. PE and SUVmax did not correlate with DFS or OS (p=0.18-0.72). CONCLUSIONS:Quantitative parameters derived from pre-treatment DW-MRI (ADCmean) and from 18F-FDG PET/CT (MTV and TLG) were associated with high-risk features and may serve as prognostic biomarkers of survival in patients with cervical cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate whether tumor volume derived from apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps (VolumeADC) and tumor mean ADC value (ADCmean) are independent predictors of prostate tumor Gleason score (GS). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN/METHODS:Tumor volume and GS were recorded from whole-mount histopathology for 131 men (median age, 60 years) who underwent endorectal diffusion-weighted MRI for local staging of prostate cancer before prostatectomy. VolumeADC and ADCmean were derived from ADC maps and correlated with histopathologic tumor volume and GS. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate prediction of tumor aggressiveness. Areas under receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the performance of VolumeADC and ADCmean in discriminating tumors of GS 6 and GS ≥7. RESULTS:Histopathology identified 116 tumor foci >0.5 mL. VolumeADC correlated significantly with histopathologic tumor volume (ρ = 0.683). The correlation increased with increasing GS (ρ = 0.453 for GS 6 tumors; ρ = 0.643 for GS 7 tumors; ρ = 0.980 for GS ≥8 tumors). Both VolumeADC (ρ = 0.286) and ADCmean (ρ = -0.309) correlated with GS. At univariate analysis, both VolumeADC (P = 0.0325) and ADCmean (P = 0.0033) could differentiate GS = 6 from GS ≥7 tumor foci. However, at multivariate analysis, only ADCmean (P = 0.0156) was a significant predictor of tumor aggressiveness (i.e., GS 6 vs. GS ≥7). For differentiating GS 6 from GS ≥7 tumors, AUCs were 0.644 and 0.704 for VolumeADC and ADCmean, respectively, and 0.749 for both parameters combined. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In patients with prostate cancer, ADCmean is an independent predictor of tumor aggressiveness, but VolumeADC is not. The latter parameter adds little to the ADCmean in predicting tumor GS.

Different treatment options are available for patients with gynecological cancers. Imaging plays an important role in assessment of patients with common cancers involving uterine body, cervix and ovaries, from detection to evaluation of the extent of disease. The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of cross-sectional imaging techniques in treatment stratification and overall management of patients with endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancers. Several imaging techniques used are described, including ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), MRI and PET/CT. Specific imaging appearances of the most common uterine, cervical and ovarian cancers are discussed. Imaging findings corresponding to the 2009 revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of gynecologic malignancies are also described. In the multidisciplinary evaluation of patients with gynecologic malignancies, the role of the radiologist has become central for accurate diagnosis and evaluation of extent of disease to achieve better treatment selection and planning.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of pre-treatment 3-Tesla (3T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for predicting Gleason score (GS) downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with GS 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 304 patients with biopsy-proven GS 3 + 4 PCa who underwent mpMRI before RP. On T2-weighted imaging and three mpMRI combinations (T2-weighted imaging + diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging + dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI [DCE-MRI], and T2-weighted imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI), two radiologists (R1/R2) scored the presence of a dominant tumour using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = definitely absent to 5 = definitely present). Diagnostic performance in identifying downgrading was evaluated via areas under the curves (AUCs). Predictive accuracies of multivariate models were calculated. RESULTS:In predicting downgrading, T2-weighted imaging + DWI (AUC = 0.89/0.85 for R1/R2) performed significantly better than T2-weighted imaging alone (AUC = 0.72/0.73; p < 0.001/p = 0.02 for R1/R2), while T2-weighted imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI (AUC = 0.89/0.84 for R1/R2) performed no better than T2-weighted imaging + DWI (p = 0.48/p > 0.99 for R1/R2). On multivariate analysis, the clinical + mpMRI model incorporating T2-weighted imaging + DWI (AUC = 0.92/0.88 for R1/R2) predicted downgrading significantly better than the clinical model (AUC = 0.73; p < 0.001 for R1/R2). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:mpMRI improves the ability to identify a subgroup of patients with Gleason 3 + 4 PCa on biopsy who are candidates for active surveillance. DCE-MRI (compared to T2 + DWI) offered no additional benefit to the prediction of downgrading. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:Diagnostic performance of T2-weighted-imaging + DWI was better than T2-weighted-imaging alone. Diagnostic performance of T2-weighted-imaging + DWI was similar to T2-weighted-imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI. Combining clinical and T2-weighted-imaging + DWI features best predicted GS downgrading. mpMRI might prevent overtreatment by increasing eligibility for PCa active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and diagnostic performance of a 5-point standardized diagnostic certainty lexicon for reporting the likelihood of extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer on routine staging prostate MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This study was a retrospective analysis of routine clinical prostate MRI reports before (254 patients) and after (211 patients) the implementation of a 5-point diagnostic certainty lexicon. Whole-mount step-section pathology of the radical prostatectomy specimens served as the reference standard. The terms used to express diagnostic certainty regarding ECE on standard-of-care MRI and the presence of ECE on pathology were compared between the two periods. ROC analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the 5-point certainty lexicon for detecting ECE. RESULTS:Before the implementation of the certainty lexicon, radiologists used 38 different terms to express the levels of certainty regarding the presence of ECE on MRI. Afterward, they adhered to the lexicon's predefined 5-point terminology in 85.3% of cases. The 5-point certainty lexicon used on MRI reports had an AUC of 0.852 for diagnosing ECE. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of a lexicon of diagnostic certainty dramatically reduced the number of expressions used by radiologists to indicate their levels of diagnostic certainty. The accuracy of the certainty lexicon for diagnosing ECE on standard-of-care prostate MRI is similar to previously reported accuracy values for the diagnosis of ECE by MRI. Thus, the use of such a lexicon might prevent miscommunication and help referring clinicians reliably incorporate radiologists' assessments into clinical decision making.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the role of conventional endorectal prostate MRI in patients with initial suspicion of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Ethics board approval was received for this retrospective study of 87 men who underwent 1.5-Tesla conventional prostate MRI with a combination of endorectal and body phased-array coils for suspected prostate cancer before their first systematic 12-core TRUS-guided biopsy. Three radiologists independently analyzed the images, dividing the prostate into 12 regions corresponding to the biopsy scheme and scoring each region for the presence of prostate cancer on a 5-point scale. Results were analyzed by prostate region. ROC analysis was done and descriptive statistics were calculated. The negative predictive value, specificity, sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated using dichotomized scores (benign tissue = scores of 1 and 2; malignant tissues = scores of 3, 4, and 5). RESULTS:Biopsy revealed cancer in 47/87 patients (26 low-grade [Gleason score 6]; 21 high-grade [Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4]), and 184/1044 cores (77 low-grade and 107 high-grade) with a median of 3 positive cores per cancer patient (range 1 – 12). The areas under ROC curves were 0.65 – 0.67 for cancer detection by region overall and 0.75 – 0.76 for the detection of high-grade cancer by region. Statistic figures for the detection of all cancers/high-grade cancers by region were as follows: negative predictive value, 87.4 – 88.2 %/92.6 – 93.1 %; specificity, 72.3 – 79.4 %/71.5 – 79.8 %; sensitivity, 49.5 – 54.8 %/62.6 – 69.2 %; and positive predictive value, 29.3 – 34.0 %/29.4 – 34.7 %. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In patients with suspected prostate cancer, negative MRI findings indicate the absence of high-grade prostate cancer on subsequent TRUS-guided 12-core biopsy with high probability. However, agreement between conventional 1.5-T endorectal prostate MRI and systematic 12-core TRUS-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer appears to be moderate.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between clear-cell carcinoma pathology grade at nephrectomy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tumor enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and waived the informed consent requirement. In all, 32 patients underwent multiphase contrast-enhanced MRI prior to nephrectomy. MRI tumor enhancement was measured using two approaches: 1) the most enhancing portion of the tumor on a single slice and 2) volumetric analysis of enhancement in the entire tumor. Associations between pathological grade, tumor size, and enhancement were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test and generalized logistic regression models. RESULTS:No significant association between pathology grade and enhancement was found when measurements were made on a single slice. When measured in the entire tumor, significant associations were found between higher pathology grades and lower mean, median, top 10%, top 25%, and top 50% tumor enhancement (P < 0.001-0.002). On multivariate analysis the association between grade and enhancement remained significant (P = 0.041-0.043), but tumor size did not make an additional contribution beyond tumor enhancement alone in differentiating between tumor grades. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is significant association between tumor grade and enhancement, but only when measured in the entire tumor and not on the most enhancing portion on a single slice.