Developing a core outcome set for hand fractures and joint injuries in adults.

The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set of what to measure in all future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. Phase 1 consisted of steps to identify potential outcome domains through systematic review of published studies, and exploration of the patient perspective through qualitative research, consisting of 25 semi-structured interviews and five focus groups. Phase 2 involved key stakeholder groups (patients, hand surgeons, and hand therapists) prioritizing the outcome domains via a three-round international Delphi survey, with a final consensus meeting to agree the final core outcome set. The systematic review of 160 studies identified 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Overall, 35 domains were generated through thematic analysis of the patient interviews and focus groups. The domains from these elements were synthesised to develop 37 outcome domains as the basis of the Delphi survey, with a further four generated from participant suggestions in Round 1. The Delphi survey identified 20 outcome domains as 'very important' for the core outcome set. At the consensus meeting, 27 participants from key stakeholder groups selected seven outcomes for the core outcome set: pain/discomfort with activity, pain/discomfort with rest, fine hand use/dexterity, self-hygiene/personal care, return to usual work/job, range of motion, and patient satisfaction with outcome/result. This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum to be reported in all clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries in adults. While this establishes what to measure, future work will focus on determining how best to measure these outcomes. By adopting this patient-centred core outcome set, consistency and comparability of studies will be improved, aiding meta-analysis and strengthening the evidence base for management of these common and impactful injuries.

Development and Implementation of a Multisite Registry Using Structured Templates for Actionable Findings in the Kidney.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to scale structured report templates categorizing actionable renal findings across health systems and create a centralized registry of patient and report data. METHODS: In January 2017, three academic radiology departments agreed to prospectively include identical structured templates categorizing the malignant likelihood of renal findings in ≥90% of all adult ultrasound, MRI, and CT reports, a new approach for two sites. Between November 20, 2017, and September 30, 2019, deidentified HL7 report data were transmitted to a centralized ACR registry. An automated algorithm extracted categories. Radiologists were requested to addend reports with missing or incomplete templates after the first month. Separately, each site submitted patient sociodemographic and clinical data 12 months before and at least 3 months after enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 164,982 eligible radiology reports were transmitted to the registry; 4,159 (2.5%) were excluded because of missing categories or radiologist names. The final cohort included 160,823 examinations on 102,619 unique patients. Mean template use before and after addendum requests was 99.3% and 99.9% at SITE1, 86.5% and 94.6% at SITE2, and 91.4% and 96.0% at SITE3. Matching patient sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained on 96.9% of reports from SITE1, 94.2% from SITE2, and 96.0% from SITE3. Regulatory, cultural, and technology barriers to the creation of a multisite registry were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the adoption of unified structured report templates for actionable kidney findings can be addressed. Deidentified report and patient data can be securely transmitted to an external registry. These data can facilitate the collection of diverse evidence-based population imaging outcomes.

Extrapancreatic Advanced Endoscopic Interventions.

As the field of interventional endoscopy advances, conditions that were once treated with surgery are increasingly being treated with advanced endoscopy. Endoscopy is now used for treatment of achalasia, bariatric procedures for obesity; resection of early-stage malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract; and placement of lumen-apposing metal stents in the treatment of biliary obstruction, gastric outlet obstruction, cholecystitis, and drainage of nonpancreatic-related fluid collections or abscesses. Knowledge of the novel terminology, procedural details, expected postintervention imaging findings, and potential complications is vital for radiologists because these procedures are rapidly becoming more mainstream in daily practice. These procedures include peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia and other esophageal motility disorders; endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and placement of an intragastric balloon for weight loss; endoscopic submucosal dissection in the resection of tumors of the gastrointestinal tract; and therapeutic endoscopic-guided procedures for the treatment of biliary obstruction, gastric outlet obstruction, acute cholecystitis, and drainage of nonpancreatically related fluid collections. Patients benefit from these minimally invasive procedures, with potential improvement in morbidity and mortality rates, decreased length of hospital stay, and decreased health care costs when compared with the surgical alternative. Complications of these procedures include leaks or perforations, infections or abscesses, fistulas, and occlusion and migration of stents. An invited commentary by Pisipati and Pannala is available online. ©RSNA, 2022.

Epidemiology of Hand Fractures and Dislocations in England and Wales Professional Cricketers.

This study describes hand fracture and dislocation injuries in terms of anatomical distribution, incidence and impact on playing time in registered professional adult male players of all 18 First Class England and Wales County Cricket clubs over a five-year period from 2010-2014. Prospectively collected injury surveillance data for 1st and 2nd Team matches (Twenty20, One day and four-day) and training were analysed. There were 109 hand fractures and 53 dislocations. Hand injury was commonest during fielding (60%, 98/162) compared to batting, bowling or wicket-keeping. Exposed parts of the hand including tips of all digits, the index finger, thumb ray and little finger ray were most frequently injured with 78% (125/160) of all injuries where anatomical location was recorded. Match injury incidence for batsmen was highest in four-day matches (0.071 injuries per 1000 overs batted) but for other player roles it was highest in Twenty20 matches (0.587 per 1000 overs bowled). Player unavailability for selection to play was incurred in 82% (89/109) of hand fractures but only 47% (25/53) of dislocations. This study clarifies the hand fracture and dislocation injury burden for this population.

A Systematic Review of Treatment Interventions for Metacarpal Shaft Fractures in Adults.

Metacarpal shaft fractures are common hand injuries that predominantly affect younger patients. There is wide variability in their treatment with no consensus on best practice. We performed a systematic review to assess the breadth and quality of available evidence supporting different treatment modalities for metacarpal shaft fractures of the finger digits in adults. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 1600 records were identified; 7 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included. No randomized controlled trials directly comparing surgery with nonsurgical treatment were found. One retrospective study compared nonsurgical with surgical treatment, whereas 6 compared surgical or nonsurgical treatments. Considerable heterogeneity between studies along with a high or critical risk of bias restricts direct comparison and conclusions. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide treatment, supporting the need for well-designed, multicenter trials to identify the most effective and cost-efficient treatment for metacarpal shaft fractures in adults.

Comparative Analysis of Kidney Transplant Recipients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Compared with Nonkidney Transplant Recipients: A Largest Single-center Report from the Second Wave of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in South East Asia.

Outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) compared with matched cohort are certainly lacking for different pandemic waves and geographic regions. In this single-center retrospective study of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases admitted during March 26, 2021 to June 7, 2021, a propensity-matched analysis in a 1:1 ratio was performed to compare the clinical profile and outcomes between KTR and non-KTR. A Cox proportional hazard model from the whole study population to analyze risk factors for severe disease and mortality was calculated. We identified 1052 COVID-19 cases, of which 107 (10.1%) were KTR. In propensity-matched analysis, KTR had higher fever (81.6 % vs. 60%; P = 0.01), lymphopenia (30% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.02), higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (43.3% vs. 25%; P = 0.05), and acute kidney injury (66.6% vs. 36.7%; P = 0.001). In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, there was no difference in mortality or severity of COVID-19. In Cox hazard proportional analysis, the European cooperative oncology group (ECOG) score of 1 to 2 [Hazard ratio (HR) 95% lower confidence interval (CI), upper CI = 4.9 (1.8-13.5); P <0.01], ECOG of >2 [HR = 20 (7.5, 54.7); P <0.01] and waitlisted status [HR = 1.9 (1.1-3.3); P = 0.02] was associated with significant mortality. Kidney transplantation [HR = 0.8 (0.47-1.44); P = 0.5] was not associated with mortality in the analysis. In our report, kidney transplantation status had a different spectrum but was not found to be independently associated with COVID-19 severity or mortality.

A Propensity-Matched Analysis of COVID-19 in Kidney Transplant Recipients Compared With Non-Kidney Transplant Patients: A Single-Center Report From India.

OBJECTIVES: Comparisons of COVID-19 incidence between kidney transplant recipients and patients who did not receive kidney transplant are underexplored in various geographic regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Indian, single-center, retrospective study analyzed COVID-19 data of patients hospitalized between May 12, 2020, and January 11, 2021. A propensity matching score was used to compare outcomes between the 2 groups. We also used multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses to assess association of kidney transplantation with mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1627 COVID-19 cases, 179 were kidney transplant recipients and 1448 were not kidney transplant patients (control group). Ofthe 436 reported in-hospital deaths, 20 (11.1%) were in the kidney transplant group and 416 (28.7%) were in the control group. Propensity matching identified 98 kidney transplantrecipients and167 controlpatients. InKaplanMeier survival plots for these patients, there was no statistical difference in mortality (log-rank, Mantel Cox test; P = .07) or severity (log-rank, Mantel Cox test; P = .07) with regard to COVID-19. In Cox analysis, age groups from 61 to 70 years (hazard ratio = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = .04), 71 to 80 years (hazard ratio = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5; P = .02), and >80 years (hazard ratio = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1; P = .01)were associatedwith statistically significant greater mortality.Having a kidney transplant (hazard ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.001) was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, age was the most important predictor of mortality. Kidney transplant status was not found to have an independent association with mortality and severity.

Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. METHODS: A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. RESULTS: The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. CONCLUSION: This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821-1830.

Developing a core outcome set for hand fractures and joint injuries in adults: a systematic review.

This study identifies the treatment outcome domains used in recently published studies on the treatment of hand fractures and joint injuries with the aim to inform development of a core outcome set. Seven databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2019 for randomized and quasi-randomized studies and large prospective observational studies. We identified 1777 verbatim outcomes in 160 eligible studies. From the verbatim outcomes we distinguished 639 unique outcomes, which we categorized into 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. The primary outcome was appropriately identified in only 65% (72/110) of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Of the 72 studies with a primary outcome identified, 74% (53/72) had an appropriate power calculation. The vast heterogeneity in outcome selection across studies highlights the need for a core outcome set of what outcomes to measure in future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries.

The pre-operative and post-operative imaging appearances of urethral strictures and surgical techniques.

Urethral strictures arise from a variety of etiologies, most commonly either iatrogenic or inflammatory in the anterior urethra and iatrogenic/surgical or traumatic etiologies in the posterior urethra. Diagnosis and treatment planning depend on urethrography, usually performed with a combination of retrograde urethrography (RUG) and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) to evaluate the anterior and posterior urethra, respectively. While this is most commonly performed fluoroscopically, sonographic urethrography is an alternative, although at the expense of the posterior urethra, it is only visualized using a transrectal approach. In addition to understand urethral anatomy, familiarity with normal periurethral structures is necessary to avoid misdiagnosis, such as Cowper's ducts, the glands of Littré, and the prostatic and ejaculatory ducts. Surgical management depends on the stricture location, length, and number and options range from balloon dilatation to endoscopic urethrotomy to anastomotic and substitution urethrotomy. Postprocedural management includes urethrography to identify potential complications including urethral leak, graft failure, and stricture recurrence.

Comparing the productivity of teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an academic abdominal imaging division.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the productivity difference between teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an abdominal imaging division in an academic radiology department. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RVU data were compiled for six faculty members from the abdominal imaging division over a six-month period. Modalities included ultrasound and CT of the abdomen and pelvis. The relative RVU productivity for faculty members by workflow was compared individually and the composite data for the workflow models were compared. The relative RVU productivity for each faculty member was compared individually and in aggregate to study the effect of the workflow models on RVUs using factorial ANOVA. Turnaround times (TAT) were compared for each attending under both models. TAT data were analyzed using paired t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Daily RVU data from 387 instances were analyzed. Daily RVUs for faculty members ranged from 23.5 ± 2.3 (mean ± standard error) to 46.2 ± 2.4 with non-teaching and from 29.8 ± 2.2 to 54.4 ± 2.7 with teaching workflow, respectively. There was a significant main effect of the workflow model on RVU productivity (p < 0.05). A significant increase of 27.8% in RVUs was noted with teaching workflow (42.8 ± 0.9) relative to non-teaching workflow (33.5 ± 1.7; p < 0.05). Teaching workflow resulted in significantly higher view-final and complete-final TATs (593 ± 112 min, mean ± SE and 841 ± 96 min, mean ± SE, respectively) compared to the non-teaching workflow (385 ± 124 min). CONCLUSION: Teaching workflow improves abdominal imaging productivity with an increase in report turnaround times.

Outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures: a systematic review.

AIMS: To analyze outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures. METHODS: OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched on the eighth August 2019. A manual search of trial registries, bibliographic review and internet search was used to identify additional studies. 11,476 studies were screened following PRISMA guidelines. 100 trials were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed by two researchers for each trial. Study quality was not evaluated. Outcomes reported by trials were mapped onto domains in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Function framework. RESULTS: In all, 525 outcomes were identified representing 52 WHO domains. Four domains were reported in more than 50% of trials: structure of upper/lower limb, sensation of pain, mobility of joint function, and health services, systems and policies. The Activities Scale for Kids performance (ASK-p) score was the most common outcome score reported in 6/72 upper limb and 4/28 lower limb trials. CONCLUSION: There is a diverse range of outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures covering all areas in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. There were three common upper limb and three common lower limb outcomes. In the absence of a core outcome set, we recommend that upper limb trials report pain, range of movement and radiograph appearance of the arm and lower limb trials report pain, radiograph appearance of the leg and healthcare costs to improve consistency of reporting in future trials.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-5:167-174.

Quality of patient-reported outcomes used for quality of life, physical function, and functional capacity in trials of childhood fractures.

AIMS: This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify all PROMs reported in trials. A search of OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was performed to identify all PROMs with validation studies in childhood fractures. Development studies were identified through hand-searching. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Study quality and risk of bias was evaluated by COSMIN guidelines and recorded on standardized checklists. RESULTS: Searches yielded 13,672 studies, which were screened to identify 124 trials and two validation studies. Review of the 124 trials identified 16 reported PROMs, of which two had validation studies. The development papers were retrieved for all PROMs. The quality of the original development studies was adequate for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility and Upper Extremity and doubtful for the EuroQol Five Dimension Youth questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y). All other PROMs were found to have inadequate development studies. No content validity studies were identified. Reviewer-rated content validity was acceptable for six PROMs: Activity Scale for Kids (ASK), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Mobility, EQ-5D-Y, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL4.0). The Modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was shown to have indeterminate reliability and convergence validity in one study and PROMIS Upper Extremity had insufficient convergence validity in one study. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend strongly the use of any single PROM to assess and report physical function or quality of life following childhood fractures. There is a need to conduct validation studies for PROMs. In the absence of these studies, we cautiously recommend the use of the PROMIS or ASK-P for physical function and the PedsQL4.0 or EQ-5D-Y for quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1599-1607.

CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules. METHODS: The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106605.

Treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this study was to identify and assess all existing randomized studies on treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries, to inform practice and plan future research. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched. We identified 78 randomized controlled trials published over 35 years, covering seven anatomical areas of the hand. We report on sources of bias, sample size, follow-up length and retention, outcome measures and reporting. In terms of interventions studied, the trials were extremely heterogeneous, so it is difficult to draw conclusions on individual treatments. The published randomized controlled clinical trial evidence for hand fractures and joint injuries is narrow in scope and of generally low methodological quality. Mapping provides a useful resource and stepping-stone for planning further research. There is a need for high-quality, collaborative research to guide management of a wider range of common hand injuries.

A Pilot Study of Radiation Therapy in Combination With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: There is no study published regarding the benefit of radiation therapy (RT) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). This report is part of an exploratory study aiming to determine the immunomodulatory activity of RT alone or in combination with pembrolizumab in solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: mRCC patients were treated with a combination of RT (8 Gy×1 or 4 Gy×5) followed by pembrolizumab with or without lead-in dose of pembrolizumab. Treatment response was measured based on the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Adverse events were monitored and graded. Pre-RT and post-RT tumor biopsies were obtained to evaluate programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Immune markers from peripheral blood before, during, and after treatment were analyzed using flow cytometry. RESULTS: Twelve mRCC patients who progressed on prior antiangiogenic therapy were enrolled. Half had 2 lines of prior therapy. Two patients (16.7%) had partial responses and were on study for 12.4 and 14.5 months. Three patients had stable disease for a period ranging from 4.2 to 10.4 months, whereas 7 patients had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 8.6 months and median overall survival was 32.3 months. Three patients had grade ≥3 events (hyperglycemia, thrombocytopenia, transaminitis). Biopsied tissue programmed death-ligand 1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were numerically higher in responders comparing to nonresponders (Modified Proportion Score 45% vs. 30.45%; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes odds ratio 4.92). CONCLUSION: Combining RT with pembrolizumab in pretreated mRCC is well-tolerated and appears to have comparable efficacy with single-agent nivolumab.

Are Hemorrhagic Cysts Hyperintense Enough on T1-Weighted MRI to Be Distinguished From Renal Cell Carcinomas? A Retrospective Analysis of 204 Patients.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of T1- and T2-weighted MRI signal-intensity ratios and signal-intensity SDs of renal lesions to determine the feasibility of distinguishing between simple cysts, hemorrhagic renal cysts, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and papillary RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Pathology records of 53 cases of papillary RCCs between 1 and 5 cm in size were included. Thirty-eight pathology-proven clear cell RCCs, 54 simple renal cysts seen on abdominal MRI, and 59 hemorrhagic renal cysts seen on abdominal MRI were identified. Lesion location and size, T1- and T2-weighted signal intensity, and corresponding SD values for each renal lesion and psoas muscle (from which lesion-to-muscle ratios were calculated) were collected. RESULTS. Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in T1-weighted lesion-to-muscle signal-intensity ratios between simple cysts (mean ± standard error, 0.54 ± 0.05), clear cell RCCs (0.86 ± 0.06), papillary RCCs (1.17 ± 0.05), and hemorrhagic renal cysts (1.95 ± 0.04). The T2-weighted lesion-to-muscle signal-intensity ratios showed a statistically significant difference between all lesion types (p < 0.02) except between hemorrhagic renal cysts and papillary RCCs, where the difference approached significance (p = 0.075). ROC analysis showed an optimal cutoff of T1-weighted lesion-to-muscle signal-intensity ratio of 1.39 to differentiate hemorrhagic cysts (above this value) from RCCs (below this value). Corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 91.2% and 74.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION. T1-weighted lesion-to-muscle signal-intensity ratio is a useful measure to discriminate mildly hyperintense RCCs from more hyperintense hemorrhagic cysts when contrast enhancement is unavailable.

Spatial distribution of biopsy cores and the detection of intra-lesion pathologic heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine if spatial distribution of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI-TRUS) fusion biopsy cores to the index lesion reveals trends in the detection of intra-lesion Gleason heterogeneity and a more optimal prostate biopsy strategy. METHODS: Index lesion was the lesion with longest diameter on T2-weighted (T2W)-MRI. In cohort 1, fusion biopsy cores biopsies were taken in areas in the center of the target as well as 1 cm laterally on each side. For cohort 2, targeted biopsies were taken from the center of the lesion only. Heterogeneity was defined as difference in maximum Gleason score obtained from fusion cores in the center of the index lesion versus cores obtained from the periphery (cohort 1), or any difference in maximum Gleason score obtained from fusion cores targeted to the index lesion (cohort 2) compared with systematic 12 cores TRUS biopsy. RESULTS: Ninety-nine consecutive patients (35 and 64 in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively) with median age (SD) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 66.9 (±5.9) and 9.7 (±8.2) respectively, were included. Age, PSA, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, and preoperative MRI lesion size were not significantly different between cohorts. Gleason heterogeneity was observed at a significantly higher rate in cohort 1 versus cohort 2 (58% versus 24%; p = 0.041). In cohort 1, cores obtained from the center of the lesion had higher Gleason score than cores obtained from the periphery of the targeted lesion in 57% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that there is observable tumor heterogeneity in biopsy specimens, and that increased number of cores, as well as cores focused on the center and periphery of the largest lesion in the prostate, provide more comprehensive diagnostic information about the patient's clinical risk category than taking nonspecific cores targeted within the tumor.