Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE. In this article, we describe 10 diagnostic challenges that may confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI for tumor, grouped into three categories on the basis of our experience: normal anatomic structures that may be misinterpreted as suspicious lesions if their normal appearance is not recognized, benign processes that may mimic tumor, and technical issues relating to acquisition and interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging that may decrease sensitivity for tumor. Strategies for addressing these challenges are suggested. CONCLUSION. It is important that the radiologist involved in the interpretation of prostate MRI be aware of these pitfalls that will be encountered during routine clinical practice. This awareness can contribute to improved diagnostic performance in MRI interpretation.

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.

INTRODUCTION: To assess impact of size of regions-of-interest (ROI) on differentiation of RCC and renal cysts using multi-phase CT, with focus on differentiating papillary RCC (pRCC) and cysts given known hypovascularity of pRCC. METHODS: 99 renal lesions (23 pRCC, 47 clear-cell RCC, 7 chromophobe RCC, 22 cysts) underwent multi-phase CT. Subjective presence of visual enhancement was recorded for each lesion. Whole-lesion (WL) ROIs, and small (