The effect of preoperative membranous urethral length on likelihood of postoperative urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy affects many men. In addition to surgical and patient factors, longer preoperative membranous urethral length (MUL) has been suggested to be associated with improved postoperative urinary continence outcomes. Here, we assess the association of preoperative MUL and the risk of persistent postoperative urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer on extended follow-up. METHODS: All participants underwent RARP at the University of California, San Francisco between 2000-2018. Patients were excluded if preoperative MRI-measured MUL was not performed by a radiologist. A single, blinded urologist remeasured MUL retrospectively. Logistic regression models examined associations between radiologist- and urologist-measured MUL and likelihood of persistent incontinence post-RARP by two definitions: strict incontinence (>0 pad/day) and social incontinence (>1 pad/day). RESULTS: In 251 men with a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 29-76), the median MUL measurements were 14 mm ([IQR 12-17], radiologist) and 15 mm ([IQR 12-18], urologist) with poor agreement (interclass correlation coefficient 0.34). On logistic regression, urologist-measured longer MUL was associated with lower likelihood of strict incontinence within 6 months (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.94) and 12 months (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-0.98) and social incontinence within 6 months (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.00) and 12 months (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.95). Radiologist-measured longer MUL was associated with lower likelihood of strict incontinence within 6 months (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-1.00) and social within 12 months (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-1.00). MUL was not associated with likelihood of strict or social incontinence within 24 months. CONCLUSION: Preoperative MRI-measured MUL was not associated with urinary incontinence after 12 months post-RARP. Poor agreement between radiologists' and urologist's measurements supports standardizing MUL measurements to establish the likelihood of early incontinence.

Positive Versus Neutral Oral Contrast Material for Detection of Malignant Deposits in Intraabdominal Nonsolid Organs on CT.

BACKGROUND. Data are limited regarding utility of positive oral contrast material for peritoneal tumor detection on CT. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare positive versus neutral oral contrast material for detection of malignant deposits in nonsolid intraabdominal organs on CT. METHODS. This retrospective study included 265 patients (133 men, 132 women; median age, 61 years) who underwent an abdominopelvic CT examination in which the report did not suggest presence of malignant deposits and a subsequent CT examination within 6 months in which the report indicated at least one unequivocal malignant deposit. Examinations used positive (iohexol; n = 100) or neutral (water; n = 165) oral agents. A radiologist reviewed images to assess whether the deposits were visible (despite clinical reports indicating no deposits) on unblinded comparison with the follow-up examinations; identified deposits were assigned to one of seven intraabdominal compartments. The radiologist also assessed adequacy of bowel filling with oral contrast material. Two additional radiologists independently reviewed examinations in blinded fashion for malignant deposits. NPV was assessed of clinical CT reports and blinded retrospective readings for detection of malignant deposits visible on unblinded comparison with follow-up examinations. RESULTS. Unblinded review identified malignant deposits in 58.1% (154/265) of examinations. In per-patient analysis of clinical reports, NPV for malignant deposits was higher for examinations with adequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material (65.8% [25/38]) than for examinations with inadequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material (45.2% [28/62], p = .07) or with neutral oral contrast material regardless of bowel filling adequacy (35.2% [58/165], p = .002). In per-compartment analysis of blinded interpretations, NPV was higher for examinations with adequate and inadequate bowel filling with positive oral contrast material than for examinations with neutral oral contrast regardless of bowel filling adequacy (reader 1: 94.7% [234/247] and 92.5% [382/413] vs 88.3% [947/1072], both p = .045; reader 2: 93.1% [228/245] and 91.6% [361/394] vs 85.9% [939/1093], both p = .01). CONCLUSION. CT has suboptimal NPV for malignant deposits in intraabdominal nonsolid organs. Compared with neutral material, positive oral contrast material improves detection, particularly with adequate bowel filling. CLINICAL IMPACT. Optimization of bowel preparation for oncologic CT may help avoid potentially severe clinical consequences of missed malignant deposits.

Renal Artery Variations in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension From the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the variability of renal artery (RA) anatomy and presence of RA-pathology in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension enrolled in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial. BACKGROUND: RADIANCE-HTN SOLO was a multicenter, international, blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial evaluating ultrasound-based endovascular renal denervation (RDN) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension while off antihypertensive medications. METHODS: Eligible subjects had pre-randomization renal CT- or MR- angiography (CTA, MRA) to confirm anatomic suitability and to define RA ablation sites. All images were sent for independent review for evaluation of RA anatomy and other vascular pathology. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients underwent RA imaging (282 CTA and 42 MRA). Of those, 178 had simple anatomy with a single left and single right RA with mean diameters of 5.4 ± 0.9 and 5.1 ± 0.8 mm and mean lengths of 40.0 ± 12.9 and 52.0 ± 13.1 mm, respectively. Twenty-seven patients (8.3%) had unilateral or bilateral dual RAs with mean diameters of 4.0 ± 0.9 mm on the left and 3.9 ± 0.9 mm on the right. Forty percent (129/324) of patients had at least 1 accessory RA, with mean accessory diameters of 2.4 ± 0.8 mm on the left and 2.3 ± 0.8 mm on the right. Twenty-eight patients (8.6%) had at least 1 short (<25 mm) main RA. Incidental findings included: 9 patients (2.8%) with atherosclerotic RA stenosis ≥30%, 9 patients (2.8%) with fibromuscular dysplasia of RA and 2 patients (0.6%) with kidney and adrenal gland tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-procedure CTA or MRA imaging is a valuable aid in assessing RA anatomy prior to RDN because of variable RA anatomy. CTA or MRA may detect RA lesions, and renal or adrenal tumors which may need additional workup prior to consideration of RDN. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02649426.

Image-Guided Percutaneous Ablation of Adrenal Metastases: A Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation of adrenal metastases through a meta-analysis of various image-guided percutaneous ablation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed for studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of image-guided percutaneous ablation of adrenal metastases. A total of 37 studies published between 2009 and 2020 were analyzed, comprising a sample size of 959 patients. Proportion estimates of overall survival, local control, and toxicity were analyzed in a pooled meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of adverse events after ablation was calculated based on common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grading. RESULTS: Of the 959 included patients, 320 (33.3%) underwent radiofrequency ablation, 72 (7.5%) microwave ablation, 95 (9.9%) cryoablation, and 46 (4.8%) ethanol injections for treatment of adrenal metastases. The remaining 426 (44.4%) patients were from studies involving a mixture of the 4 listed percutaneous ablation techniques. The pooled 1-year local control rate was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76%-83%). The pooled 1-year overall survival rate was 77% (95% CI, 70%-83%). The overall rate of severe adverse events after ablation (CTCAE grade 3 or higher) was 16.1%. The overall rate of low-grade adverse events after ablation (CTCAE grade 2 or lower) was 32.6%. Approximately 21.9% (n = 203) of patients experienced intraprocedural hypertensive crises, the majority of which were reversed with antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that image-guided percutaneous ablation can be effective in achieving acceptable short- to mid-term local tumor control and overall survival with a moderate safety profile.

Management of Residual or Recurrent Disease Following Thermal Ablation of Renal Cortical Tumors.

Management of residual or recurrent disease following thermal ablation of renal cortical tumors includes surveillance, repeat ablation, or surgical extirpation. We present a multicenter experience with regard to the management of this clinical scenario. Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to identify 1265 patients who underwent cryoablation (CA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for enhancing renal masses. Disease persistence or recurrence was classified into one of the three categories: (i) residual disease in ablation zone; (ii) recurrence in the ipsilateral renal unit; and (iii) metastatic/extra-renal disease. Seventy seven patients (6.1%) had radiographic evidence of disease persistence or recurrence at a median interval of 13.7 months (range, 1-65 months) post-ablation. Distribution of disease included 47 patients with residual disease in ablation zone, 29 with ipsilateral renal unit recurrences (all in ablation zone), and one with metastatic disease. Fourteen patients (18%) elected for surveillance, and the remaining underwent salvage ablation (n = 50), partial nephrectomy (n = 5), or radical nephrectomy (n = 8). Salvage ablation was successful in 38/50 (76%) patients, with 12 failures managed by observation (3), tertiary ablation (6), and radical nephrectomy (3). At a median follow-up of 28 months, the actuarial cancer-specific survival and overall survival in this select cohort of patients was 94.8 and 89.6%, respectively.

Intermediate to Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Cryoablation for Renal Masses.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation (CA) for treatment of renal masses in a large cohort of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 299 CA procedures (297 masses in 277 patients) performed between July 2007 and May 2018 at a single institution. The mean patient age was 66.1 years (range, 30-93 years) with 65.8% being male. A total of 234 (78.8%) masses were biopsy-proven renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The mean maximal tumor diameter was 2.5 cm (range, 0.7-6.6 cm). Efficacy was assessed only for ablations of biopsy-proven RCC, whereas the evaluation of adverse events and renal function included all masses. Complications were graded according to the Society of International Radiology classification. RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 3.0% of procedures (n = 9), none of which resulted in death or permanent disability. The mean imaging follow-up period was 27.4 months (range, 1-115) for the 199 RCC patients (204 ablated tumors) with follow-up imaging available. Complete response on initial follow-up imaging at mean 4.2 months (range, 0.3-75.6) was achieved in 195 of 204 tumors (95.6%) after a single session and in 200 of 204 tumors (98.0%) after 1 or 2 sessions. Of the RCC patients achieving complete response initially, local recurrence during the follow-up period occurred in 3 of 200 tumors (1.5%). Metastatic progression occurred in 10 of 193 (5.2%) RCC patients without prior metastatic disease during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CA for renal masses is safe and remains efficacious through intermediate- and long-term follow-up.

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Updated guidelines for intravenous contrast use for CT and MRI.

Intravenous (IV) contrast material is used extensively for CT and MRI scans done in emergency departments (ED). Its use is essential to make many critical diagnoses in ED patients. While adverse reactions can occur, newer research has added to our knowledge of IV contrast media tolerance and safety leading to improved and more liberal guidelines for intravenous contrast use. The updated information described in this review article indicates how intravenous contrast can be used safely in more patients, more expeditiously and with fewer precautions than with prior guidelines. This review article explains the basis for the new recommendations for intravenous contrast material use and describes indicated precautions and preparations to avoid adverse reactions for iodinated agents used for CT and gadolinium agents for MRI.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate is an excellent tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer, and it has widely been incorporated into clinical practice due to its excellent tissue contrast and image resolution. The aims of this article are to describe the prostate MR imaging technique for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer according to PI-RADS v2.1, as well as alternative sequences and basic aspects of patient preparation and MR imaging artifact avoidance.

The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies.

Management of prostate cancer relies heavily on accurate risk stratification obtained through biopsies, which are conventionally performed under transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance. Yet, multiparametric MRI has grown to become an integral part of the care of males with known or suspected prostate cancer. This article will discuss in detail the different MRI-targeted biopsy techniques, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact they have on patient management.

Uncommon malignant renal tumors and atypical presentation of common ones: a guide for radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: While the typical imaging features of the more common RCC subtypes have previously been described, they can at times have unusual, but distinguishing features. Rarer renal tumors span a broad range of imaging features, but they may also have characteristic presentations. We review the key imaging features of atypical presentations of malignant renal tumors and uncommon malignant renal tumors. CONCLUSION: Renal tumors have many different presentation patterns, but knowledge of the distinguishing MR and CT features can help identify both atypical presentation of common malignancies and uncommon renal tumors.

The Role of MR Imaging in Pancreatic Cancer.

MR imaging plays an important role in the assessment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Its superior soft tissue contrast is useful in the detection of small, non-contour-deforming tumors and for characterizing indeterminate pancreatic findings at computed tomography. MR imaging can also improve the detection of distant metastases, especially in the liver, thereby facilitating the appropriate selection of surgical candidates.

CT and MRI of small renal masses.

Small renal masses are increasingly detected incidentally at imaging. They vary widely in histology and aggressiveness, and include benign renal tumors and renal cell carcinomas that can be either indolent or aggressive. Imaging plays a key role in the characterization of these small renal masses. While a confident diagnosis can be made in many cases, some renal masses are indeterminate at imaging and can present as diagnostic dilemmas for both the radiologists and the referring clinicians. This article will summarize the current evidence of imaging features that correlate with the biology of small solid renal masses, and discuss key approaches in imaging characterization of these masses using CT and MRI.

PI-RADS v2 and ADC values: is there room for improvement?

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ADC values in combination with PI-RADS v2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa) compared to PI-RADS v2 alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 155 men whom underwent 3-Tesla prostate MRI and subsequent MR/US fusion biopsies at a single non-academic center from 11/2014 to 3/2016. All scans were performed with a surface coil and included T2, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Suspicious findings were classified using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 and targeted using MR/US fusion biopsies. Mixed-effect logistic regression analyses were used to determine the ability of PIRADS v2 alone and combined with ADC values to predict CS-PCa. As ADC categories are more practical in clinical situations than numeric values, an additional model with ADC categories of ≤ 800 and > 800 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 243 suspicious lesions were included, 69 of which were CS-PCa, 34 were Gleason score 3+3 PCa, and 140 were negative. The overall PIRADS v2 score, ADC values, and ADC categories are independent statistically significant predictors of CS-PCa (p < 0.001). However, the area under the ROC of PIRADS v2 alone and PIRADS v2 with ADC categories are significantly different in both peripheral and transition zone lesions (p = 0.026 and p = 0.03, respectively) Further analysis of the ROC curves also shows that the main benefit of utilizing ADC values or categories is better discrimination of PI-RADS v2 4 lesions. CONCLUSION: ADC values and categories help to diagnose CS-PCa when lesions are assigned a PI-RADS v2 score of 4.

Association between misty mesentery with baseline or new diagnosis of cancer: a matched cohort study.

We compared the prevalence of a baseline diagnosis of cancer in patients with and without misty mesentery (MM) and determined its association with the development of a new cancer. This was a retrospective, HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved case-control study of 148 cases and 4:1 age- and gender-matched controls. Statistical tests included chi-square, t-test, hazard models, and C-statistic. Patients with MM were less likely to have cancer at baseline (RR=0.74, p=0.003), but more likely to develop a new malignancy on follow-up (RR=2.13, p=0.003; survival analysis HR 1.74, p=0.05). MM may confer an increased probability of later developing cancer, particularly genitourinary tumors.

Impact of Lesion Visibility on Transrectal Ultrasound on the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (Gleason Score 3 + 4 or Greater) with Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of lesion visibility with transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, institutional review board approved, retrospective study was performed in 178 men who were 64.7 years old with prostate specific antigen 8.9 ng/ml. They underwent transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy from January 2013 to September 2016. Visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging were assigned a PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 score of 3 or greater. Transrectal ultrasound was positive when a hypoechoic lesion was identified. We used a 3-level, mixed effects logistic regression model to determine how transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging concordance predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of the 2 methods was estimated using ROC curves. RESULTS: A total of 1,331 sextants were targeted by transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion or systematic biopsies, of which 1,037 were negative, 183 were Gleason score 3 + 3 and 111 were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging alone at 20.5% and 19.7% of these locations, respectively. Men with positive imaging had higher odds of clinically significant prostate cancer than men without visible lesions regardless of modality (transrectal ultrasound OR 14.75, 95% CI 5.22-41.69, magnetic resonance imaging OR 12.27, 95% CI 6.39-23.58 and the 2 modalities OR 28.68, 95% CI 14.45-56.89, all p <0.001). The ROC AUC to detect clinically significant prostate cancer using the 2 methods (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) was statistically greater than that of transrectal ultrasound alone (0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.85, p = 0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging alone (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of transrectal ultrasound were 42.3% and 91.6%, and the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging were 62.2% and 84.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lesion visibility on magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound denotes a similar probability of clinically significant prostate cancer. This probability is greater when each examination is positive.

Impact of the integration of proton magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy to PI-RADS 2 for prediction of high grade and high stage prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictions of dominant Gleason pattern ≥ 4 or non-organ confined disease with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) with or without proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine men underwent 3-tesla endorectal multiparametric MRI including 1H-MRSI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADS v2 and 1H-MRSI scores to index lesions. Statistical analyses used logistic regressions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and 2x2 tables for diagnostic accuracies. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) were 85.7% (57.1%) and 92.9% (100%), and 56% (68.0%) and 24.0% (24.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) were 64.0% (40%) and 20.0% (48%), and 50.0% (57.1%) and 71.4% (64.3%). The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer were 0.65 and 0.61 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.72 and 0.70 when combined with 1H-MRSI (readers 1 and 2, p = 0.04 and 0.21). For prediction of EPE the AUC were 0.54 and 0.60 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.55 and 0.61 when combined with 1H-MRSI (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: 1H-MRSI might improve the discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer when combined to PI-RADS v2, particularly for PI-RADS v2 score 4 lesions, but it does not affect the prediction of EPE.

OBJETIVO: Comparar as predições de tumor com padrão 4 de Gleason dominante ou de tumor com extensão extraprostática utilizando o sistema Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2), combinado ou não a espectroscopia por ressonância magnética (1H-ERM). MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Trinta e nove pacientes submeteram-se a RM de 3 tesla com bobina endorretal, incluindo 1H-ERM, e prostatectomia. Dois radiologistas classificaram as principais lesões identificadas em cada caso utilizando PI-RADS v2 e escores de 1H-ERM. As análises estatísticas incluíram regressões logísticas, curvas receiver operating characteristic (ROC) e tabelas 2x2 para acurácia diagnóstica. RESULTADOS: A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de câncer de próstata de alto grau foram 85,7% (57,1%) e 92,9% (100%), e 56% (68%) e 24% (24%). A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de extensão extraprostática (EEP) foram 64,0% (40%) e 20% (48%), e 50% (57,1%) e 71,4% (64,3%). As áreas das curvas ROC para a predição de câncer de alto grau foram 0,65 e 0,61 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,72 e 0,70 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (radiologistas 1 e 2, p = 0.04 e 0.21). Para a predição de EEP, as áreas das curvas ROC foram 0,54 e 0,60 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,55 e 0,61 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (p > 0.05). CONCLUSÃO: É possível que a 1H-ERM melhore a predição de câncer de alto grau quando combinada ao PI-RADS v2, em particular para lesões que recebem um escore PI-RADS v2 4; entretanto, ela não afeta a predição de EEP.