Pancreatic tail cancer in the setting of pancreatitis with a review of the literature: A case report.

Environmental risk factors for pancreatic cancer include acute and chronic pancreatitis, obesity, and tobacco use. Differentiating a pancreatic neoplasm in a patient with pancreatitis can be challenging due to their similar presentations. A 57-year-old African American man with a history of congestive heart failure, pancreatitis, and incomplete pancreas divisum presented with an epigastric abdominal pain that radiated to his back. Imaging showed necrotizing pancreatitis, a developing splenic infarct, and a mass at the pancreas tail. The patient was discharged with pain medications and was recommended follow-up imaging after resolution of his pancreatitis. He was readmitted to the emergency department 2 weeks later with recurrent acute abdominal pain. Computed tomography scan of abdomen and pelvis followed by magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound revealed an infiltrative pancreatic tail mass. Biopsy of the mass confirmed a locally advanced pancreatic tail adenocarcinoma. Chronic pancreatitis is associated with pancreatic cancer. Practitioners should be aware of the co-existence of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, and the initial steps to evaluate a malignancy in chronic pancreatitis.

Accuracy and Variability of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: A Blinded Comparison of Radiologists.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an important tool for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, diagnostic accuracy is affected by variability between radiologists. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy and variability in prostate mpMRI interpretation among radiologists, both individually and in teams, in a blinded fashion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A study cohort (n=32) was created from our prospective registry of patients who received prostate mpMRI with subsequent biopsy. The cohort was then independently reviewed by four radiologists of varying levels of experience, who assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification, blinded to all clinical information. Consensus interpretation by teams of two radiologists was evaluated after a 12-wk wash-out period. Interpretive accuracy was calculated with various cutoffs for PI-RADS classification and Gleason score. Variability among individual radiologists and teams was calculated using the Fleiss kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Using PI-RADS 3+/Gleason 7+ (p<0.01) and PI-RADS 4+/Gleason 6+ (p=0.02) as cutoffs, significant differences in accuracy among the four radiologists were noted. At no cutoff for PI-RADS classification or Gleason score did a team read achieve higher accuracy than the most accurate radiologist. The kappa and ICC ranged from 0.22 to 0.29 for the individuals and from 0.16 to 0.21 for the teams (poor agreement). A larger sample size may be needed to adequately power differences in accuracy among individual radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: At various cutoffs for PI-RADS classification and Gleason score, we find significant differences in individual radiologist accuracy, as well as a poor agreement among individual radiologists. Consensus interpretations-as teams of two radiologists-did not improve accuracy or reduce variability. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study investigated radiologist variability and differences in accuracy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Despite attempts to standardize interpretation within the field, we found substantial variability and significant differences in accuracy among individual radiologists.

Determination of the Role of Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate in Clinical Practice: Is Biopsy Still Necessary?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the negative predictive value (NPV) of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in routine clinical practice and to identify characteristics of patients for whom mpMRI fails to detect high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of consecutive men who received prostate mpMRI at our institution, interpreted by a clinical practice of academic radiologists. Between January 2012 and December 2015, 84 men without any magnetic resonance imaging suspicious regions according to prior institutional classification, or with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2 lesions according to the PI-RADS system, underwent standard template transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. Using these biopsy results, we calculated the NPV of mpMRI for the detection of PCa and identified patient risk factors for having a Gleason score ≥7 PCa on biopsy. RESULTS: High-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was found on TRUS biopsy in 10.3% of biopsy-naive patients (NPV=89.7%), 16.7% of patients with previous negative biopsy (NPV=83.3%), and 13.3% of patients on active surveillance (NPV=86.6%). On multivariate analysis, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) estimated risk for high-grade PCa (as a continuous variable) was a significant predictor for high-grade PCa on biopsy (odds ratio 1.01, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Men with negative mpMRIs interpreted in a routine clinical setting have a significant risk of harboring Gleason score ≥7 PCa on a standard 12-region template biopsy, independent of indication. Standard template TRUS prostate biopsy should still be recommended for patients with negative mpMRI, particularly those with elevated PCPTRC estimated risk of high-grade PCa.