Phyllodes Tumors-The Predictors and Detection of Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Phyllodes tumors are rare breast neoplasms and the histopathological grade and surgical margins help guide treatment and follow-up. The traditional surgical teaching is resection with ≥10 mm margins, but are narrower surgical margins acceptable? The purpose of our study was to identify predictors of local recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to identify patients with phyllodes tumors who underwent surgery between 2002 and 2014 using a regional pathology database. Electronic medical records were used to identify surgical management, pathological characteristics, and follow-up encounters. RESULTS: A total of 150 phyllodes tumors were included: 110 of 150 (73%) benign, 21 of 150 (14%) borderline, and 19 of 150 (13%) malignant. At initial surgery, 29 specimens had a positive margin and 15 (56%) underwent re-excision. Seventy tumors had a surgical margin of ≤1 mm, 40 had a margin of 2 to 9 mm, and 11 had a margin of ≥10 mm. There were 11 of 150 (7.3%) locally recurrent tumors: 5 of 11 (45%) benign, 3 of 11 (27%) borderline, and 3 of 11 (27%) malignant. In total, 10 of 11 locally recurrent tumors had a positive margin or ≤1 mm margin at initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Phyllodes tumors can have a personalized treatment approach based on histopathological grade and surgical margins. Borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors with a positive or ≤1 mm surgical margin have an increased risk of recurrence. In benign phyllodes tumors, an optimal narrow negative margin may exist but the traditional ≥10 mm excisional margin is not necessary. Local recurrence rates may be sufficiently low in benign phyllodes tumors that imaging can be performed on the presence of clinical symptoms.

Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Consensus Statement Regarding Chest Imaging in Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared infection related to a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) a pandemic. The role and impact of imaging predates this declaration and continues to change rapidly. This article is a consensus statement provided by the Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology and the Canadian Association of Radiologists outlining the role of imaging in COVID-19 patients. The objectives are to answer key questions related to COVID-19 imaging of the chest and provide guidance for radiologists who are interpreting such studies during this pandemic. The role of chest radiography (CXR), computed tomography (CT), and lung ultrasound is discussed. This document attempts to answer key questions for the imager when dealing with this crisis, such as "When is CXR appropriate in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection?" or "How should a radiologist deal with incidental findings of COVID-19 on CT of the chest done for other indications?" This article also provides recommended reporting structure for CXR and CT, breaking diagnostic possibilities for both CXR and CT into 3 categories: typical, nonspecific, and negative based on imaging findings with representative images provided. Proposed reporting language is also outlined based on this structure. As our understanding of this pandemic evolves, our appreciation for how imaging fits into the workup of patients during this unprecedented time evolves as well. Although this consensus statement was written using the most recent literature, it is important to maintain an open mind as new information continues to surface.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Unenhanced CT Analysis to Differentiate Low-Grade From High-Grade Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate tumor attenuation and texture on unenhanced CT for potential differentiation of low-grade from high-grade chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 37 consecutive patients with chromophobe RCC (high-grade, n = 13; low-grade, n = 24) who underwent preoperative unenhanced CT between 2011 and 2016 was performed. Two radiologists (readers 1 and 2) blinded to the histologic grade of the tumor and outcome of the patients subjectively evaluated tumor homogeneity (3-point scale: completely homogeneous, mildly heterogeneous, or mostly heterogeneous). A third radiologist, also blinded to tumor grade and patient outcome, measured attenuation and contoured tumors for quantitative texture analysis. Comparisons were performed between high-grade and low-grade tumors using the chi-square test for subjective variables and sex, independent t tests for patient age and tumor attenuation, and Mann-Whitney U tests for texture analysis. Logistic regression models and ROC curves were computed. RESULTS: There were no differences in age or sex between the groups (p = 0.652 and 0.076). High-grade tumors were larger (mean ± SD, 62.6 ± 34.9 mm [range, 17.0-141.0 mm] vs 39.0 ± 17.9 mm [16.0-72.3 mm]; p = 0.009) and had higher attenuation (mean ± SD, 45.5 ± 8.2 HU [range, 29.0-55.0 HU] vs 35.3 ± 8.5 HU [14.0-51.0 HU]; p = 0.001) than low-grade tumors. CT size and attenuation achieved good accuracy to diagnose high-grade chromophobe RCC: The AUC ± standard error was 0.85 ± 0.08 (p < 0.0001) with a sensitivity of 69.0% and a specificity of 100%. Subjectively, high-grade tumors were more heterogeneous (mildly or markedly heterogeneous: 69.2% [9/13] for reader 1 and 76.9% [10/13] for reader 2; reader 1, p = 0.024; reader 2, p = 0.001) with moderate agreement (κ = 0.57). Combined texture features diagnosed high-grade tumors with a maximal AUC of 0.84 ± 0.06 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Tumor attenuation and heterogeneity assessed on unenhanced CT are associated with high-grade chromophobe RCC and correlate well with the histopathologic chromophobe tumor grading system.

Are growth patterns on MRI in small (< 4 cm) solid renal masses useful for predicting benign histology?

PURPOSE: To evaluate previously described growth patterns in < 4 cm solid renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, 63 renal cell carcinomas (RCC; clear cell n = 22, papillary n = 28, chromophobe n = 13) and 36 benign masses [minimal-fat (mf) angiomyolipoma (AML) n = 13, oncocytoma n = 23) from a single institution were independently evaluated by two blinded radiologists (R1/R2) using T2-weighted MRI for (1) the angular interface sign (AIS), (2) bubble-over sign (BOS), (3) percentage (%) exophytic growth and (4) long-to-short axis ratio. Comparisons were performed using ANOVA, chi-square and multi-variate regression. RESULTS: AIS was present in 11.1% (7/63) -9.5% (6/63) R1/R2 RCC compared to 13.9% (5/36) -19.4% (7/36) R1/R2 benign masses (p = 0.68 and 0.16). BOS was present in 11.1% (7/63) -3.2% (2/63) R1/R2 RCC compared to 16.7% (6/36) -8.3% (3/36) R1/R2 benign masses (p = 0.432 and 0.261). Agreement was moderate (K = 0.50 and 0.55). mf-AML [66 ± 32% (range 0-100%)] and oncocytoma [53 ± 26% (0-90%)] had larger % exophytic growth compared to RCC [32 ± 23% (0-80%)] (p < 0.001). No RCC had 90-100% exophytic growth, present in 38.5% (5/13) mf-AMLs and 17.4% (4/23) oncocytomas. The long-to-short axis did not differ between groups (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Benign masses show greater % exophytic growth whereas other growth patterns are not useful. Future studies evaluating % exophytic growth using multi-variate MR analysis in renal masses are required. KEY POINTS: • Greater exophytic growth is associated with benignity among solid renal masses. • Only minimal fat AMLs and oncocytomas had 90-100% exophytic growth. • The angular interface sign was not useful to differentiate benign masses from RCC. • The bubble-over sign was not useful to differentiate benign masses from RCC. • Subjective analysis of growth patterns had fair-to-moderate agreement.

Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?

Renal angiomyolipomas without visible fat (AML.wovf) are benign masses that are incidentally discovered mainly in women. AML.wovf are typically homogeneously hyperdense on unenhanced CT without calcification or haemorrhage. Unenhanced CT pixel analysis is not useful for diagnosis. AML.wovf are characteristically homogeneously hypointense on T2-weighted (T2W)-MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Despite early reports, only a minority of AML.wovf show signal intensity drop on chemical-shift MRI due to microscopic fat. AML.wovf most commonly show avid early enhancement with washout kinetics at contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. The combination of homogeneously low T2W and/or ADC signal intensity with avid early enhancement and washout is highly accurate for diagnosis of AML.wovf. KEY POINTS: • AML.wovf are small incidental benign renal masses occurring mainly in women. • AML.wovf are homogeneously hyperdense with low signal on T2W-MRI and ADC map. • AML.wovf typically show avid early enhancement with washout kinetics. • Combining features on CT/MRI is accurate for diagnosis of AML.wovf.

Evaluation of MRI for diagnosis of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 149 men with 170 ≥0.5 mL tumors underwent preoperative 3T MRI followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012-2015. Two blinded radiologists (R1/R2) assessed tumors using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2, subjectively evaluated for the presence of EPE, measured tumor size, and length of capsular contact (LCC). A third blinded radiologist, using MRI-RP-maps, measured whole-lesion: apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mean/centile and histogram features. Comparisons were performed using chi-square, logistic regression, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The subjective EPE assessment showed high specificity (SPEC = 75.4/91.3% [R1/R2]), low sensitivity (SENS = 43.3/43.6% [R1/R2]), and area-under (AU) ROC curve = 0.67 (confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.73) R1 and 0.61 (CI 0.53-0.70) R2; (k = 0.33). PI-RADS v2 scores were strongly associated with EPE (P < 0.001 / P = 0.008; R1/R2) with AU-ROC curve = 0.72 (0.64-0.79) R1 and 0.61 (0.53-0.70) R2; (k = 0.44). Tumors with EPE were larger (18.8 ± 7.8 [median 17, range 6-51] vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 [12, 6-28] mm) and had greater LCC (21.1 ± 14.9 [16, 1-85] vs. 13.6 ± 6.1 [11.5, 4-30] mm); P < 0.001 and 0.002, respectively. AU-ROC for size was 0.73 (0.64-0.80) and LCC was 0.69 (0.60-0.76), respectively. Optimal SENS/SPEC for diagnosis of EPE were: size ≥15 mm = 67.7/66.7% and LCC ≥11 mm = 84.9/44.8%. 10th -centile ADC and ADC entropy were both associated with EPE (P = 0.02 and < 0.001), with AU-ROC = 0.56 (0.47-0.65) and 0.76 (0.69-0.83), respectively. Optimal SENS/SPEC for diagnosis of EPE with entropy ≥6.99 was 63.3/75.0%. 25th -centile ADC trended towards being significantly lower with EPE (P = 0.06) with no difference in other ADC metrics (P = 0.25-0.88). Size, LCC, and ADC entropy improved sensitivity but reduced specificity compared with subjective analysis with no difference in overall accuracy (P = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Measurements of tumor size, capsular contact, and ADC entropy improve sensitivity but reduce specificity for diagnosis of EPE compared to subjective assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:176-185.

Prognostic value of Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To assess Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 score 4/5 lesions compared to Gleason score (GS) and stage after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to validate the proposed 15-mm size threshold that differentiates category 4 versus 5 lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 140 men underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and RP between 2012-2015. Two blinded radiologists: 1) assigned PI-RADS v. 2 scores, 2) measured tumor size on axial T2 -weighted-MRI, and 3) assessed for extraprostatic extension (EPE). Interobserver agreement was calculated and consensus diagnoses achieved through reference standard (MRI-RP maps). PI-RADS v. 2 scores and tumor size were compared to GS and stage using chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: In all, 80.7% (113/140) of tumors were category 4 (n = 45) or 5 (n = 68) lesions (κ = 0.45). Overall tumor size was 18.2 ± 7.7 mm and category 5 lesions were larger (22.6 ± 6.8 versus 11.5 ± 1.9 mm, P < 0.001). High-risk (GS ≥8) tumors were larger than low- and intermediate-risk tumors (P = 0.016) and were more frequently, but not significantly so, category 5 lesions (78.9% [15/19] vs. 22.1% [4/10], P = 0.18). 67.3% (76/113) of patients had EPE. Category 5 lesions were strongly associated with EPE (P < 0.0001). Area under the ROC curve for diagnosis of EPE by size was 0.74 (confidence interval 0.64-0.83), with size ≥15 mm yielding a sensitivity/specificity of 72.4/64.9%. Size improved sensitivity for diagnosis of EPE compared to subjective assessment (sensitivity/specificity ranging from 46.1-48.7%/70.3-86.5%, κ = 0.29) (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v. 2 category 5 lesions are associated with higher Gleason scores and EPE. A 15-mm size threshold is reasonably accurate for diagnosis of EPE with increased sensitivity compared to subjective assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:257-266.

MRI assessment of pathological stage and surgical margins in anterior prostate cancer (APC) using subjective and quantitative analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and positive surgical margins (PSM) in anterior prostate cancer (APC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 25 APC (>2/3 of tumor anterior to urethra) were assessed using 3T MRI by two blinded radiologists for: size and maximal leading edge of tumor (relative to anterior fibromuscular stroma [AFMS]) on b ≥1000 sec/mm2 echo-planar-MRI fused onto T2 -weighted-MRI, invasion of AFMS and EPE. Comparisons were performed between APCs by EPE/PSM using chi-square, multivariable analysis, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of EPE and PSM were 52% (13/25) and 36% (9/25). Tumor sizes were larger with EPE (22.5 ± 8.4 vs. 14.7 ± 6.3, P = 0.02) and PSM (23.0 ± 9.3 vs. 16.4 ± 7.0, P = 0.06). Area under ROC curve (AUC-ROC) for the diagnosis of EPE by tumor size was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.95); ≥16 mm size = sensitivity/specificity 69.2/66.7%. Maximal leading edge of tumor was greater with EPE (2.4 ± 2.2 vs. -0.2 ± 3.0) and PSM (2.8 ± 2.3 vs. -0.3 ± 2.5), (P = 0.023, 0.031). AUC-ROC for diagnosis of EPE/PSM by leading edge was 0.78 (CI 0.57-0.97) and 0.75 (CI 0.56-0.94). A ≥1 mm leading edge yielded sensitivity/specificity of 76.9/75.0% and 77.8/62.5% for diagnosis of EPE/PSM. 60-72% (15-18/25) tumors invaded AFMS (k = 0.74), which was not associated with EPE/PSM (P = 0.12-0.14). Radiologists' assessment of EPE had sensitivity/specificity of 61.5-69.2/50.0-75.0% (k = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Tumor size and leading edge of tumor relative to AFMS may enable diagnosis of EPE and positive surgical margins in APC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1296-1303.