A Proposal for the Retrospective Identification and Categorization of Older People With Functional Impairments in Scientific Studies-Recommendations of the Medication and Quality of Life in Frail Older Persons (MedQoL) Research Group.

When treating older adults, a main factor to consider is physical frailty. Because specific assessments in clinical trials are frequently lacking, critical appraisal of treatment evidence with respect to functional status is challenging. Our aim was to identify and categorize assessments for functional status given in clinical trials in older adults to allow for a retrospective characterization and indirect comparison of treatment evidence from these cohorts. We conducted 4 separate systematic reviews of randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in older people with hypertension, diabetes, depression, and dementia. All assessments identified that reflected functional status were analyzed. Assessments were categorized across 4 different functional status levels. These levels span from functionally not impaired, slightly impaired, significantly impaired, to severely impaired/disabled. If available from the literature, cut-offs for these 4 functioning levels were extracted. If not, or if the existing cut-offs did not match the predefined functional levels, cut-off points were defined by an expert group composed of geriatricians, pharmacists, pharmacologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, and epidemiologists using a patient-centered approach. We identified 51 instruments that included measures of functional status. Although some of the assessments had clearly defined cut-offs across our predefined categories, many others did not. In most cases, no cut-offs existed for slightly impaired or severely impaired older adults. Missing cut-offs or values to adjust were determined by the expert group and are presented as described. The functional status assessments that were identified and operationalized across 4 functional levels could now be used for a retrospective characterization of functional status in randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Allocated categories only serve as approximations and should be validated head-to-head in future studies. Moreover, as general standard, upcoming studies involving older adults should include and explicitly report functional impairment as a baseline characteristic of all participants enrolled.

Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance and inter-reader reliability of the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) based prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2 for the assessment of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 82 patients underwent endorectal mpMRI at 1.5T. Patients had at least one lesion with a PI-RADS v1 assessment category of ≥3 and were selected for targeted in-bore MR-guided biopsy in a subsequent session. The results of the histopathological workup were used as reference standard. All lesions were retrospectively evaluated according to PI-RADS v2 by an experienced and unexperienced blinded reader. Diagnostic performance was compared by analyzing the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AUC). The weighted kappa method was used to calculate inter-reader reliability. RESULTS: Targeted MR-guided biopsy was performed in 136 lesions and revealed 39 malignant lesions in 31 patients. AUC values increased for the experienced reader (PI-RADS v1 0.79; PI-RADS v2 0.83) and unexperienced reader (PI-RADS v1 0.70; PI-RADS v2 0.83). When excluding the cases of low grade cancer (Gleason score=3+3), AUC values increased further for the experienced reader (PI-RADS v1 0.88; PI-RADS v2 0.91) and unexperienced reader (PI-RADS v1 0.78; PI-RADS v2 0.90). Specificity at the selected threshold of a PI-RADS v1/v2 assessment category ≥4 improved for both readers. Inter-reader agreement increased from κ=0.55 in PI-RADS v1 to κ=0.68 in v2. CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 improved diagnostic performance for the assessment of suspicious intraprostatic lesions identified in PI-RADS v1 for both readers and led to higher inter-reader reliability. These results suggest that PI-RADS v2 is a reliable and replicable reporting system for the assessment of prostate cancer.