Use of Multiphase CT Protocols in 18 Countries: Appropriateness and Radiation Doses.

PURPOSE: To assess the frequency, appropriateness, and radiation doses associated with multiphase computed tomography (CT) protocols for routine chest and abdomen-pelvis examinations in 18 countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency, multi-institutional data on clinical indications, number of scan phases, scan parameters, and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose-index volume; dose-length product [DLP]) were collected for routine chest (n = 1706 patients) and abdomen-pelvis (n = 426 patients) CT from 18 institutions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Two radiologists scored the need for each phase based on clinical indications (1 = not indicated, 2 = probably indicated, 3 = indicated). We surveyed 11 institutions for their practice regarding single-phase and multiphase CT examinations. Data were analyzed with the Student t test. RESULTS: Most institutions use multiphase protocols for routine chest (10/18 institutions) and routine abdomen-pelvis (10/11 institutions that supplied data for abdomen-pelvis) CT examinations. Most institutions (10/11) do not modify scan parameters between different scan phases. Respective total DLP for 1-, 2-, and 3-phase routine chest CT was 272, 518, and 820 mGy·cm, respectively. Corresponding values for 1- to 5-phase routine abdomen-pelvis CT were 400, 726, 1218, 1214, and 1458 mGy cm, respectively. For multiphase CT protocols, there were no differences in scan parameters and radiation doses between different phases for either chest or abdomen-pelvis CT (P = 0.40-0.99). Multiphase CT examinations were unnecessary in 100% of routine chest CT and in 63% of routine abdomen-pelvis CT examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase scan protocols for the routine chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations are unnecessary, and their use increases radiation dose.

Logistic regression model for diagnosis of transition zone prostate cancer on multi-parametric MRI.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop logistic regression (LR) models for classifying prostate cancer within the transition zone on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI). METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five patients (training cohort, 70 patients; temporal validation cohort, 85 patients) underwent mp-MRI and transperineal-template-prostate-mapping (TPM) biopsy. Positive cores were classified by cancer definitions: (1) any-cancer; (2) definition-1 [≥Gleason 4 + 3 or ≥ 6 mm cancer core length (CCL)] [high risk significant]; and (3) definition-2 (≥Gleason 3 + 4 or ≥ 4 mm CCL) cancer [intermediate-high risk significant]. For each, logistic-regression mp-MRI models were derived from the training cohort and validated internally and with the temporal cohort. Sensitivity/specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC-AUC) curve were calculated. LR model performance was compared to radiologists' performance. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 70 patients from the training cohort, and 25/85 patients from the temporal validation cohort had significant cancer on TPM. The ROC-AUC of the LR model for classification of cancer was 0.73/0.67 at internal/temporal validation. The radiologist A/B ROC-AUC was 0.65/0.74 (temporal cohort). For patients scored by radiologists as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (Pi-RADS) score 3, sensitivity/specificity of radiologist A 'best guess' and LR model was 0.14/0.54 and 0.71/0.61, respectively; and radiologist B 'best guess' and LR model was 0.40/0.34 and 0.50/0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LR models can improve classification of Pi-RADS score 3 lesions similar to experienced radiologists. KEY POINTS: • MRI helps find prostate cancer in the anterior of the gland • Logistic regression models based on mp-MRI can classify prostate cancer • Computers can help confirm cancer in areas doctors are uncertain about.

Zone-specific logistic regression models improve classification of prostate cancer on multi-parametric MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the interchangeability of zone-specific (peripheral-zone (PZ) and transition-zone (TZ)) multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) logistic-regression (LR) models for classification of prostate cancer. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-one patients (70 TZ training-cohort; 76 PZ training-cohort; 85 TZ temporal validation-cohort) underwent mp-MRI and transperineal-template-prostate-mapping biopsy. PZ and TZ uni/multi-variate mp-MRI LR-models for classification of significant cancer (any cancer-core-length (CCL) with Gleason > 3 + 3 or any grade with CCL ≥ 4 mm) were derived from the respective cohorts and validated within the same zone by leave-one-out analysis. Inter-zonal performance was tested by applying TZ models to the PZ training-cohort and vice-versa. Classification performance of TZ models for TZ cancer was further assessed in the TZ validation-cohort. ROC area-under-curve (ROC-AUC) analysis was used to compare models. RESULTS: The univariate parameters with the best classification performance were the normalised T2 signal (T2nSI) within the TZ (ROC-AUC = 0.77) and normalized early contrast-enhanced T1 signal (DCE-nSI) within the PZ (ROC-AUC = 0.79). Performance was not significantly improved by bi-variate/tri-variate modelling. PZ models that contained DCE-nSI performed poorly in classification of TZ cancer. The TZ model based solely on maximum-enhancement poorly classified PZ cancer. CONCLUSION: LR-models dependent on DCE-MRI parameters alone are not interchangable between prostatic zones; however, models based exclusively on T2 and/or ADC are more robust for inter-zonal application. KEY POINTS: • The ADC and T2-nSI of benign/cancer PZ are higher than benign/cancer TZ. • DCE parameters are significantly different between benign PZ and TZ, but not between cancerous PZ and TZ. • Diagnostic models containing contrast enhancement parameters have reduced performance when applied across zones.

Qualitative and quantitative comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in clinical practice.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare whole-body PET/MR imaging and PET/CT, qualitatively and quantitatively, in oncologic patients and assess the confidence and degree of inter- and intraobserver agreement in anatomic lesion localization. METHODS: Fifty patients referred for staging with known cancers underwent PET/CT with low-dose CT for attenuation correction immediately followed by PET/MR imaging with 2-point Dixon attenuation correction. PET/CT scans were obtained according to standard protocols (56 ± 20 min after injection of an average 367 MBq of (18)F-FDG, 150 MBq of (68)Ga-DOTATATE, or 333.8 MBq of (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-choline; 2.5 min/bed position). PET/MR was performed with 5 min/bed position. Three dual-accredited nuclear medicine physicians/radiologists identified the lesions and assigned each to an exact anatomic location. The image quality, alignment, and confidence in anatomic localization of lesions were scored on a scale of 1-3 for PET/CT and PET/MR imaging. Quantitative analysis was performed by comparing the standardized uptake values. Intraclass correlation coefficients and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to assess intra- and interobserver agreement in image quality, alignment, and confidence in lesion localization for the 2 modalities. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven tracer-avid lesions were identified in 50 patients. Of these, 225 were correctly identified on PET/CT and 227 on PET/MR imaging by all 3 observers. The confidence in anatomic localization improved by 5.1% when using PET/MR imaging, compared with PET/CT. The mean percentage interobserver agreement was 96% for PET/CT and 99% for PET/MR imaging, and intraobserver agreement in lesion localization across the 2 modalities was 93%. There was 10% (5/50 patients) improvement in local staging with PET/MR imaging, compared with PET/CT. CONCLUSION: In this first study, we show the effectiveness of whole-body PET/MR imaging in oncology. There is no statistically significant difference between PET/MR imaging and PET/CT in respect of confidence and degree of inter- and intraobserver agreement in anatomic lesion localization. The PET data on both modalities were similar; however, the observed superior soft-tissue resolution of MR imaging in head and neck, pelvis, and colorectal cancers and of CT in lung and mediastinal nodal disease points to future tailored use in these locations.

Painful knee prosthesis: can we help with bone SPECT/CT?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the value of single-photon emission computerized tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in the clinical assessment of painful knee prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2011 we identified 105 patients who had undergone Tc-hydroxydiphosphonate SPECT/CT for painful knee prosthesis. Complete follow-up data were available for 69 patients (50 women and 19 men; mean age, 71 years) with painful knee prostheses (59 total, nine unicompartmental, one patellofemoral) and clinical suspicion of infection or loosening. The imaging test report in conjunction with the clinical data from the patient's notes was used to gauge how useful the test had been in terms of patient management. RESULTS: SPECT/CT confirmed the suspected clinical diagnosis of loosening in nine patients (13%) and of infection in two (2.9%) and identified other causes in 43 patients (62.3%). In 85.5% of patients, SPECT/CT was clinically useful (both positive and negative results), whereas in 14.5% it had no clinical impact on patient management. Revision surgery was performed in 24/69 (34.8%) patients and confirmed the SPECT/CT diagnosis in 21 patients (seven loosening, one infection, two subchondral fractures, two postoperative inflammation and nine patellofemoral osteoarthritis). CONCLUSION: SPECT/CT is a useful tool for the evaluation of painful knee prosthesis in 85.5% of cases and helps in confirming mechanical loosening and in excluding other causes such as infection and patellofemoral osteoarthritis.