Concordance of MRI-Guided Fusion and Systematic 12-Core Prostate Biopsy for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Background: MRI-guided fusion biopsy is increasingly utilized over systematic 12-core biopsy for men with MRI-visible prostate lesions. Patients and Methods: Patients with MRI visible lesions who underwent MRI-guided fusion and systematic 12-core biopsy from 2016-2020 in the Intermountain Healthcare (IHC) system were consecutively analyzed. This was in the setting of a continuous quality assurance initiative among the reading radiologists. Primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) detection defined by Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 or higher. Clinically significant cancer (CSC) was defined as GGG 2 or higher. Patients were stratified by biopsy date, 2016-2017 and 2018-2021, and lesions were stratified by PI-RADS v2 category. Results: A total of 184 patients with 324 MRI-detectable lesions underwent both biopsy modalities in the IHC system from 2016 to 2021. CSC was detected in 23.5% of MRI-guided fusion biopsies. Comparing PI-RAD v2 categories 1-3 to categories 4-5, rate of CSC was 10% and 42% respectively. MRI-guided fusion and systematic 12-core biopsies were concordant for PCa in 77% of men and CSC in 83%. MRI-guided fusion biopsy detected PCa in 26/103 and CSC in 20/131 men in whom systematic 12-core biopsy was negative. Systematic 12-core biopsy detected PCa in 17/94 and CSC in 11/122 men in whom MRI-guided fusion was negative. Conclusions: Omitting MRI-guided fusion or systematic 12-core biopsy would have resulted in underdiagnosis of CSC in 11% or 6% of patients respectively. Combining biopsies increased detection rate of CSC. This was in the setting of a continuous quality assurance program at a large community-based hospital.

Personalizing Localized Prostate Cancer: Validation of a Combined Clinical Cell-cycle Risk (CCR) Score Threshold for Prognosticating Benefit From Multimodality Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is a validated model that combines the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score with the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. This score determines the risk of progressive disease for men with prostate cancer. Here, we further validate the prognostic ability of the CCR score and evaluate its ability to help determine which patients may safely forgo multimodality therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the CCR and a CCR-based multimodality threshold (2.112) in a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized disease (N = 718). These men received single or multimodality therapy (androgen deprivation with radiation [RT], or surgery with adjuvant RT or hormones). RESULTS: CCR score prognosticated metastasis for single-modality therapy, as a continuous variable (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.06) and when dichotomized at the threshold (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% CI, 5.43-46.52). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier risk for those receiving single-modality (RT or surgical) therapy with CCR scores below and above the threshold for single-modality treatment was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-17.1%) and 20.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-30.7%), respectively. Using the threshold, 27% of men with newly diagnosed high-risk and 73% with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease could avoid multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCR scores below the multimodality threshold (2.112) may safely forgo multimodality therapy. The CCR score can be used as a decision aid to counsel men whether or not single-modality therapy would be sufficient for their intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of cell cycle progression testing, prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, and clinicopathologic data in management of localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) gene expression classifier test, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring, and clinicopathologic data in select prostate cancer (PCa) medical management scenarios. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of patients (N = 222) ascertained sequentially from a single urology practice from January 2015 to June 2018. Men were included if they had localized PCa, a CCP score, and an mpMRI PI-RADS v2 score. Cohort 1 (n = 156): men with newly diagnosed PCa, with or without a previous negative biopsy. Cohort 2 (n = 66): men who initiated active surveillance (AS) without CCP testing, but who received the test during AS. CCP was combined with the UCSF Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score to produce a clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which was reported in the context of a validated AS threshold. Spearman's rank correlation test was used to evaluate correlations between variables. Generalized linear models were used to predict binary Gleason score category and medical management selection (AS or curative therapy). Likelihood-ratio tests were used to determine predictor significance in both univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, modest but significant correlations were observed between PI-RADS score and CCP (rs = 0.22, P = 8.1 × 10-4), CAPRA (rs= 0.36, P = 4.8 × 10-8), or CCR (rs = 0.37, P = 2.0 × 10-8), suggesting that much of the prognostic information captured by these measures is independent. When accounting for CAPRA and PI-RADS score, CCP was a significant predictor of higher-grade tumor after radical prostatectomy, with the resected tumor approximately 4 times more likely to harbor Gleason ≥4+3 per 1-unit increase in CCP in Cohort 1 (Odds Ratio [OR], 4.10 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 14.12], P = 0.006) and in the combined cohorts (OR, 3.72 [95% CI, 1.39, 11.88], P = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PI-RADS score was not a significant predictor of post-radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Both CCP and CCR were significant and independent predictors of AS versus curative therapy in Cohort 1 on multivariable analysis, with each 1-unit increase in score corresponding to an approximately 2-fold greater likelihood of selecting curative therapy (CCP OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.16, 3.94], P = 0.014) (CCR OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.48, 3.87], P = 1.5 × 10-4). CCR at or below the AS threshold significantly reduced the probability of selecting curative therapy over AS (OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13, 0.57], P = 4.4 × 10-4), further validating the clinical utility of the AS threshold. CONCLUSION: CCP was a better predictor of both tumor grade and subsequent patient management than was PI-RADS. Even in the context of targeted biopsy, molecular information remains essential to ensure precise risk assessment for men with newly diagnosed PCa.

Analysis of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score generated from needle biopsy in men treated with definitive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification can help guide appropriate treatment decisions in men with localized prostate cancer. Here, we evaluated the independent ability of the molecular cell cycle progression (CCP) score and the combined cell-cycle clinical risk (CCR) score to predict 10-year risk of progression to metastatic disease in a large, pooled analysis of men with definitively treated prostate cancer. METHODS: The pooled analysis included 1,062 patients from four institutions (Martini Clinic, Durham VA Medical Center, Intermountain Healthcare, Ochsner Clinic) treated definitively for localized prostate cancer by either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy (brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy ± hormone therapy). The CCP score was determined using the RNA expression of 46 genes from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsy tissue. The CCR score was calculated using a predefined linear combination of the CCP score and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The scores were evaluated for association with 10-year risk of metastatic disease following definitive therapy after adjusting for other clinical variables. RESULTS: The CCP score was strongly associated with 10-year risk of metastatic disease in multivariable analysis [Hazard Ratio per unit score = 2.21; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64, 2.98; p = 1.9 × 10-6] after adjusting for CAPRA, treatment type, and cohort. CCR was also highly prognostic (Hazard Ratio per unit score = 4.00; 95% CI 2.95, 5.42; p = 6.3 × 10-21). There was no evidence of interaction between CCP or CCR and cohort (p = 0.79 and p = 0.86, respectively) or treatment type (p = 0.55 and p = 0.78, respectively). Observed patient CCR-based predicted risks for metastatic disease by 10 years ranged from 0.1 to 99.4%, (IQR 0.7%, 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Both CCP and CCR scores provided independent prognostic information for predicting progression to metastatic disease after both surgery and radiation. These results further demonstrate their potential use as a risk stratification tool in patients with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.

Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Prior studies have established the economic burden of prostate cancer on society. However, changes to screening, novel therapies and increased use of active surveillance (AS) create a need for an updated analysis. Methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate medical costs associated with localized prostate cancer over 10 years. Results: 10-year costs averaged $45,957, $99,445 and $188,928 for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. For low-risk patients, AS 10-year costs averaged $33,912/patient, whereas definitive treatment averaged $49,667/patient. Despite higher failure rates in intermediate-risk patients, AS remained less costly than definitive treatment, with 10-year costs averaging $90,614/patient and $99,394/patient, respectively. Conclusion: Broader incorporation of AS, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate this growing economic burden.

Intraoperative utilization of advanced imaging modalities in a complex kidney stone case: a pilot case study.

PURPOSE: Despite the increasing use of advanced 3D imaging techniques and 3D printing, these techniques have not yet been comprehensively compared in a surgical setting. The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of five different advanced imaging modalities during a complex renal surgical procedure. METHODS: A patient with a horseshoe kidney and multiple large, symptomatic stones that had failed Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy treatment was used for this evaluation. CT data were used to generate five different imaging modalities, including a 3D printed model, three different volume rendered models, and a geometric CAD model. A survey was used to evaluate the quality and breadth of the imaging modalities during four different phases of the laparoscopic procedure. RESULTS: In the case of a complex kidney procedure, the CAD model, 3D print, volume render on an autostereoscopic 3D display, interactive and basic volume render models demonstrated added insight and complemented the surgical procedure. CAD manual segmentation allowed tissue layers and/or kidney stones to be made colorful and semi-transparent, allowing easier navigation through abnormal vasculature. The 3D print allowed for simultaneous visualization of renal pelvis and surrounding vasculature. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary exploration indicates that various advanced imaging modalities, when properly utilized and supported during surgery, can be useful in complementing the CT data and laparoscopic display. This study suggests that various imaging modalities, such as ones utilized in this case, can be beneficial intraoperatively depending on the surgical step involved and may be more helpful than 3D printed models. We also present factors to consider when evaluating advanced imaging modalities during complex surgery.

Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression (CCP) score in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men who underwent RP for Gleason score ≤6 PCa at three institutions (Martini Clinic [MC], Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center [DVA] and Intermountain Healthcare [IH]) were identified. The CCP score was obtained from diagnostic (DVA, IH) or simulated biopsies (MC). The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR; prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL) after RP. The prognostic utility of the CCP score was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in the subset of men meeting NCCN low-risk criteria and in the overall cohort. RESULTS: Among the 236 men identified, 80% (188/236) met the NCCN low-risk criteria. Five-year BCR-free survival for the low (<0), intermediate (0-1) and high (>1) CCP score groups was 89.2%, 80.4%, 64.7%, respectively, in the low-risk cohort (P = 0.03), and 85.9%, 79.1%, 63.1%, respectively, in the overall cohort (P = 0.041). In multivariable models adjusting for clinical and pathological variables with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, the CCP score was an independent predictor of BCR in the low-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77 per unit score, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.58; P = 0.003) and overall cohorts (HR 1.41 per unit score, 95% CI 1.02, 1.96; P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of men with NCCN-defined low-risk PCa, the CCP score improved clinical risk stratification of men who were at increased risk of BCR, which suggests the CCP score could improve the assessment of candidacy for active surveillance and guide optimum treatment selection in these patients with otherwise similar clinical characteristics.

Using Electronic Health Record Data to Identify Prostate Cancer Patients That May Qualify for Active Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of the protein-specific antigen (PSA) test in care means that prostate cancer (PCa) is being detected earlier and more frequently. The result of increased screening using PSA, digital rectal examination and awareness of prostate was an increase in the number of men with low risk cancers. Active surveillance has become a viable alternative to immediate treatment with surgery, radiation and other forms of localized treatment. Evidence suggests that there is no significant difference in mortality rates between AS and surgery. In addition, patients may potentially delay other complications associated with surgery, radiation or deprivation therapy. METHODS: This quality improvement study using a delivery system science framework describes the electronic identification of AS candidates given an evidence-based identification criteria based upon national guidelines and clinical judgement. The study population (n=649) was drawn from health records of all patients who received a prostate biopsy (n=1731) at Intermountain Healthcare from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2014. Automated and manual abstraction was performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare AS-eligible patients to the actual treatment received to identify potential care improvement opportunities. Among those with complete data, 24.7% of this population (n=160) met "AS-eligible" criteria. 39.1% of the population had not received surgery, radiation or androgen deprivation therapy and were considered as being treated using an AS approach. 9% of AS-eligible patients did not receive AS; 27% of patients who did not meet AS-eligible criteria received AS. Estimated guideline adherence measured using area under the curve was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.73). Modest variation in criteria parameters for identifying AS-eligible patients did not significantly change estimated adherence levels. CONCLUSION: Implementation of evidence-based criteria for detection of AS candidates is feasible using electronic health record data and provides a reasonable basis for delivery system evaluation of practice patterns and for quality improvement.

Long-term health effects among testicular cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Testicular cancer is diagnosed at a young age and survival rates are high; thus, the long-term effects of cancer treatment need to be assessed. Our objectives are to estimate the incidence rates and determinants of late effects in testicular cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of testicular cancer survivors, diagnosed 1991-2007, followed up for a median of 10 years. We identified 785 testicular cancer patients who survived ≥5 years and 3323 men free of cancer for the comparison group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare the hazard ratio between the cases and the comparison group and for internal analysis among case patients. RESULTS: Testicular cancer survivors experienced a 24 % increase in risk of long-term health effects >5 years after diagnosis. The overall incidence rate of late effects among testicular cancer survivors was 66.3 per 1000 person years. Higher risks were observed among testicular cancer survivors for hypercholesterolemia, infertility, and orchitis. Chemotherapy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection appeared to increase the risk of late effects. Being obese prior to cancer diagnosis appeared to be the strongest factor associated with late effects. CONCLUSIONS: Testicular cancer survivors were more likely to develop chronic health conditions when compared to cancer-free men. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: While the late effects risk was increased among testicular cancer survivors, the incidence rates of late effects after cancer diagnosis was fairly low.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria indeterminate renal mass.

Renal masses are increasingly detected in asymptomatic individuals as incidental findings. An indeterminate renal mass is one that cannot be diagnosed confidently as benign or malignant at the time it is discovered. CT, ultrasonography, and MRI of renal masses with fast-scan techniques and intravenous (IV) contrast are the mainstays of evaluation. Dual-energy CT, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, PET/CT, and percutaneous biopsy are all technologies that are gaining traction in the characterization of the indeterminate renal mass. In cases in which IV contrast cannot be used, whether because of IV contrast allergy or renal insufficiency, renal mass classification with CT is markedly limited. In the absence of IV contrast, ultrasonography, MRI, and biopsy have some advantages. Owing to the low malignant and metastatic potential of small renal cell carcinomas (≤4 cm in diameter), active surveillance is additionally emerging as a diagnostic strategy for patients who have high surgical risk or limited life expectancy. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and application by the panel of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) on renal failure.

Imaging plays a role in the management of patients with acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease. However, clinical circumstances strongly impact the appropriateness of imaging use. In patients with newly detected renal dysfunction, ultrasonography can assess for reversible causes, assess renal size and echogenicity, and thus, establish the chronicity of disease. Urinary obstruction can be detected, but imaging is most useful in high-risk groups or in patients in whom there is a strong clinical suspicion for obstruction. Computed tomography, computed tomography or magnetic resonance arteriography, and percutaneous ultrasound-guided renal biopsy are valuable in other clinical situations. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR appropriateness criteria post-treatment follow-up of renal cell carcinoma.

Although localized renal cell carcinoma can be effectively treated by surgery or ablative therapies, local or distant metastatic recurrence after treatment is not uncommon. Because recurrent disease can be effectively treated, patient surveillance after treatment of renal cell carcinoma is very important. Surveillance protocols are generally based on the primary tumor's size, stage, and nuclear grade at the time of resection, as well as patterns of tumor recurrence, including where and when metastases occur. Various imaging modalities may be used in the evaluation of these patients. Literature on the indications and usefulness of these radiologic studies is reviewed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression score is associated with prostate cancer outcomes in various clinical settings. However, previous studies of men treated with radical prostatectomy evaluated cell cycle progression scores generated from resected tumor tissue. We evaluated the prognostic usefulness of the score derived from biopsy specimens in men treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the cell cycle progression score in cohorts of patients from the Martini Clinic (283), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (176) and Intermountain Healthcare (123). The score was derived from simulated biopsy (Martini Clinic) or diagnostic biopsy (Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Intermountain Healthcare) and evaluated for an association with biochemical recurrence and metastatic disease. RESULTS: In all 3 cohorts the cell cycle progression score was associated with biochemical recurrence and metastatic disease. The association with biochemical recurrence remained significant after adjusting for other prognostic clinical variables. On combined analysis of all cohorts (total 582 patients) the score was a strong predictor of biochemical recurrence on univariate analysis (HR per score unit 1.60, 95% CI 1.35-1.90, p=2.4×10(-7)) and multivariate analysis (HR per score unit 1.47, 95% CI 1.23-1.76, p=4.7×10(-5)). Although there were few events (12), the cell cycle progression score was the strongest predictor of metastatic disease on univariate analysis (HR per score unit 5.35, 95% CI 2.89-9.92, p=2.1×10(-8)) and after adjusting for clinical variables (HR per score unit 4.19, 95% CI 2.08-8.45, p=8.2×10(-6)). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression score derived from a biopsy sample was associated with adverse outcomes after surgery. These results indicate that the score can be used at disease diagnosis to better define patient prognosis and enable more appropriate clinical care.

Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: The strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed. METHODS: A mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments. RESULTS: Data was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.

Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for follow-up of clinically localized renal neoplasms undergoing active surveillance, or following definitive therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published articles in the English literature between January 1999 and 2011 relevant to key questions specified by the Panel related to kidney neoplasms and their follow-up (imaging, renal function, markers, biopsy, prognosis). Study designs consisting of clinical trials (randomized or not), observational studies (cohort, case-control, case series) and systematic reviews were included. RESULTS: Guideline statements provided guidance for ongoing evaluation of renal function, usefulness of renal biopsy, timing/type of radiographic imaging and formulation of future research initiatives. A lack of studies precluded risk stratification beyond tumor staging; therefore, for the purposes of postoperative surveillance guidelines, patients with localized renal cancers were grouped into strata of low- and moderate- to high-risk for disease recurrence based on pathological tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation for patients on active surveillance and following definitive therapy for renal neoplasms should include physical examination, renal function, serum studies and imaging and should be tailored according to recurrence risk, comorbidities and monitoring for treatment sequelae. Expert opinion determined a judicious course of monitoring/surveillance that may change in intensity as surgical/ablative therapies evolve, renal biopsy accuracy improves and more long-term follow-up data are collected. The beneficial impact of careful follow-up will also need critical evaluation as further study is completed.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain--suspicion of stone disease.

Low dose (<3 mSv) noncontrast CT (NCCT) is the imaging study of choice for accurate evaluation of patients with acute onset of flank pain and suspicion of stone disease (sensitivity 97%, specificity 95%). NCCT can reliably characterize the location and size of an offending ureteral calculus, identify complications, and diagnose alternative etiologies of abdominal pain such as appendicitis. By comparison, the sensitivity of radiographs (59%) and ultrasound (24-57%) for the detection of renal and ureteral calculi is relatively poor. Ultrasound can accurately diagnose pelvicaliectasis and ureterectasis, but it may take several hours for these findings to develop. In the pregnant patient, however, ultrasound is a first line test as it does not expose the fetus to ionizing radiation. MR is an accurate test for the diagnosis of pelvicaliectasis and ureterectasis, but is less sensitive than CT for the diagnosis of renal and ureteral calculi. For patients with known stone disease whose stones are visible on radiographs, radiographs are a good tool for post-treatment follow-up.The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® acute onset of scrotal pain--without trauma, without antecedent mass.

Men or boys, who present with acute scrotal pain without prior trauma or a known mass, most commonly suffer from torsion of the spermatic cord; epididymitis or epididymoorchitis; or torsion of the testicular appendages. Less common causes of pain include a strangulated hernia, segmental testicular infarction, or a previously undiagnosed testicular tumor. Ultrasound is the study of choice to distinguish these disorders; it has supplanted Tc-99 m scrotal scintigraphy for the diagnosis of spermatic cord torsion. MRI should be used in a problem solving role if the ultrasound examination is inconclusive. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® posttreatment follow-up of prostate cancer.

Although prostate cancer can be effectively treated, recurrent or residual disease after therapy is not uncommon and is usually detected by a rise in prostate-specific antigen. Patients with biochemical prostate-specific antigen relapse should undergo a prompt search for the presence of local recurrence or distant metastatic disease, each requiring different forms of therapy. Various imaging modalities and image-guided procedures may be used in the evaluation of these patients. Literature on the indications and usefulness of these radiologic studies and procedures in specific clinical settings is reviewed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Skill based mentored laparoscopy course participation leads to laparoscopic practice expansion and assists in transition to robotic surgery.

PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest poor long-term incorporation of laparoscopy into urology practice after a postgraduate course. We evaluated the influence of the American Urological Association Mentored Laparoscopy Course on urologist clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2-day Mentored Laparoscopy Course includes lectures, standardized dry laboratory training with videotape analysis and a porcine laboratory with consistent mentors. Surveys to assess the impact of the course were sent in April 2010 to the 153 urologists who had taken the course from 2004 through 2009. RESULTS: Of the 153 surveys 91 (60%) were returned a mean of 34.5 months after completing the course. Of the respondents 82% were in a group private practice, followed by solo private practice (15%) and full-time academic practice (3%). Of the respondents 92% reported that they had sutured laparoscopically, 52% had sutured a bleeding vessel and 51% had performed reconstructive laparoscopy since taking the course. Of the respondents 77% reported that their laparoscopic practice had expanded since taking the course (mean 2.9 cases monthly). Of the 41 respondents (45%) who now performed robotic surgery (mean 3.8 cases monthly) 39 (95%) thought that the course experience had helped with the transition into robotic surgery. Overall survey respondents were pleased with the experience during the course with 89 of 91 (98%) stating that they would recommend the course to a colleague. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term results reveal that the American Urological Association Mentored Laparoscopy Course attendees reported expansion in their laparoscopic practice since taking the course. They described the course as benefiting the transition to robotic surgery.