Explore the vast range of titles available.

Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients. In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18–75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants. Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3–36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5–38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8–8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6–11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria). There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy. French National Cancer Institute.

Objective Renal cell carcinomas represent the sixth- and tenth-most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and women. Recently, percutaneous-guided thermal ablations have proved to be as effective as partial nephrectomy and safer for treating small renal masses (i.e.,  < 3 cm). This study compared the perioperative and recurrence outcomes of percutaneous thermal ablation (TA) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for the treatment of T1b renal cell carcinomas (4.1–7 cm). Methods Retrospective data from 11 centers on the national database, between 2010 and 2020, included 81 patients treated with thermal ablation (TA) and 308 patients treated with RAPN for T1b renal cell carcinoma, collected retrospectively and matched for tumor size, histology results, and the RENAL score. TA included cryoablation and microwave ablation. Endpoints compared the rate between the two groups: local recurrence, metastases, complications, renal function decrease, and length of hospitalization. Results After matching, 75 patients were included in each group; mean age was 76.6 (± 9) in the TA group and 61.1 (± 12) in the RAPN group, including 69.3% and 76% men respectively. The local recurrence (LR) rate was significantly higher in the TA group than in the PN group (14.6% vs 4%; p  = 0.02). The LR rate was 20% (1/5) after microwave ablation, 11.1% (1/9) after radiofrequency ablation, and 14.7% (9/61) after cryoablation. The major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo  ≥ 3) was higher following PN than after TA (5.3% vs 0%; p  < 0.001). Metastases, eGFR decrease, and length of hospitalization did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions The local recurrence rate was significantly higher after thermal ablation; however, thermal ablation resulted in significantly lower rates of complications. Summary statement Thermal ablation and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy are effective treatments for T1b renal cancer; however, the local recurrence rate was higher after thermal ablation. Key Points • The local recurrence rate was significantly higher in the thermal ablation group than in the partial nephrectomy group. • The major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3) was higher following PN than after TA (5.3% vs. 0%; p < 0.001).

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RALPN) and selective arterial embolization (SAE) for the treatment of sporadic renal angiomyolipoma (AML). Patients and methods: The outcomes of patients who were managed by RALPN (n = 191) or SAE (n = 51) for sporadic renal AML were matched (2:1) using a propensity score for analyses. The primary endpoint was therapeutic success defined as the absence of secondary treatment. Secondary endpoints were post-operative complications and renal function preservation (loss of eGFR at 6 months). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to predict factors associated with re-intervention. Results: Patients baseline characteristics in the matched population (RALP, n=96 vs. SAE, n=48) were balanced. LOS was shorter (mean: 4.2 vs. 3.1 days; p = 0.004) and EBL was lower (327 mL vs. 0 mL, p < 0.0001) in the SAE group. Overall (PN: 15.2% vs. AES: 11.7% p = 0.09) and Clavien-Dindo stratified (p = 0.62) complications were similar in both groups. After a comparable mean follow-up time (33 vs. 40 months, p = 0.63), there was an overall mean loss of eGFR of 7.7±26 mL/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.001). This loss was similar between the two groups (PN: 6.87±26 vs. AES: 11.56±23, p = 0.36). After adjusting for identified confounding factors including tumor size, type of primary intervention (RALPN vs SAE) was the only predictive factor for secondary intervention. Conclusion: RALPN was associated with decreased need for secondary treatment with no increase in morbidity compared with SAE.

Background: The Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) score is a novel standardized approach to image and report bladder cancer (BC) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Objectives: To describe and evaluate the performance of the VI-RADS score using mpMRI and assess its potential clinical applications and limitations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic bibliographic databases between June 2020 and December 2020. All reports deemed relevant to describe the VI-RADS score and assess its performance and applications were retrieved. Results presentation stands as narrative, purely descriptive synthesis based on aggregate studies data. Results: A total of 20 relevant studies were retrieved: three meta-analyses, five prospective studies, and twelve retrospective studies. The retrospective studies covered 1676 patients, while the prospective studies included a total number of 468 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity to differentiate muscle-invasive from non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, ranged from 74.1% to 97.3%, and 77% to 100%, respectively. The chosen VI-RADS score thresholds for this discrimination varied across studies. The interreader agreement ranged from 0.73 to 0.95. Currently, the potential clinical applications of VI-RADS consist of initial BC risk stratification, assessment of neoadjuvant therapies response, and bladder sparing approaches, although further validation is required. Conclusions: The VI-RADS score helps to discriminate muscle invasive from non-muscle invasive BC with good performance and reproducibility. A simple algorithm based on four basic questions may enhance its popularization. Further studies are required to validate the clinical applications.

Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs) represent the most common group of inherited progressive encephalopathies in children. They are characterized by progressive loss of vision, mental and motor deterioration, epileptic seizures, and premature death. Rare adult forms of NCL with late onset are known as Kufs' disease. Loci underlying these adult forms remain unknown due to the small number of patients and genetic heterogeneity. Here we confirm that a late-onset form of NCL recessively segregates in US and French pedigrees of American Staffordshire Terrier (AST) dogs. Through combined association, linkage, and haplotype analyses, we mapped the disease locus to a single region of canine chromosome 9. We eventually identified a worldwide breed-specific variant in exon 2 of the Arylsulfatase G (ARSG) gene, which causes a p.R99H substitution in the vicinity of the catalytic domain of the enzyme. In transfected cells or leukocytes from affected dogs, the missense change leads to a 75% decrease in sulfatase activity, providing a functional confirmation that the variant might be the NCL-causing mutation. Our results uncover a protein involved in neuronal homeostasis, identify a family of candidate genes to be screened in patients with Kufs' disease, and suggest that a deficiency in sulfatase is part of the NCL pathogenesis.

ObjectivesThis study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality.MethodsA total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes.ResultsTwenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker.ConclusionsAn ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments.Key Points• Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations.• Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI.• To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale. In this international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5–10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4–6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of non-inferiority (considering a margin of 0·05) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if non-inferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341. Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·87–0·94; p<0·0001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 0·86 (0·83–0·89), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 0·02. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6·8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57·7%, 95% CI 51·6–63·3), or 50·4% fewer false-positive results and 20·0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89·4%, 95% CI 85·3–92·9). In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non-inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (68·9% [95% CI 65·3–72·4] vs 69·0% [65·5–72·5]) at the same sensitivity (96·1%, 94·0–98·2) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (−0·04) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (−0·05) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p<0·001). An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system. Health~Holland and EU Horizon 2020.

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. Clinical relevance statement High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. Key Points High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI . PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium . PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI .

MRI has gained prominence in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) being widely used for cancer detection. Beyond PI-RADS, other MRI-based scoring tools have emerged to address broader aspects within the PCa domain. However, the multitude of available MRI-based grading systems has led to inconsistencies in their application within clinical workflows. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) assesses the likelihood of clinically significant radiological changes of PCa during active surveillance, and the Prostate Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) scoring system evaluates the risk of local recurrence after whole-gland therapies with curative intent. Underlying any system is the requirement to assess image quality using the Prostate Imaging Quality Scoring System (PI-QUAL). This article offers practicing radiologists a comprehensive overview of currently available scoring systems with clinical evidence supporting their use for managing PCa patients to enhance consistency in interpretation and facilitate effective communication with referring clinicians. Key Points Assessing image quality is essential for all prostate MRI interpretations and the PI-QUAL score represents  the standardized tool for this purpose . Current urological clinical guidelines for prostate cancer diagnosis and localization recommend adhering to the PI-RADS recommendations . The PRECISE and PI-RR scoring systems can be used for assessing radiological changes of prostate cancer during active surveillance and the likelihood of local recurrence after radical treatments respectively .