External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer exhibits biological and clinical heterogeneity even within established clinico-pathologic risk groups. The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is a validated method to further risk-stratify disease in patients with prostate cancer, but its performance solely within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease has not been undertaken to date. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 405 men with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent primary treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at 11 centers from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the hazard ratios (HR) for the development of metastatic disease based on clinico-pathologic variables, risk groups, and GC score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined for regression models without and with the GC score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 82 months, 104 patients (26%) developed metastatic disease. On univariable analysis, increasing GC score was significantly associated with metastatic disease ([HR]: 1.34 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.50, p < 0.001), while age, serum PSA, biopsy GG, and clinical T-stage were not (all p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, GC score (HR: 1.33 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI: 1.19-1.48, p < 0.001) and GC high-risk (vs low-risk, HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.79-4.87, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with metastasis. The addition of GC score to regression models based on NCCN risk group improved model AUC from 0.46 to 0.67, and CAPRA from 0.59 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, conventional clinico-pathologic data had poor discrimination to risk stratify development of metastatic disease. GC score was a significant and independent predictor of metastasis and may help identify men best suited for treatment intensification/de-escalation.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Patient-Reported Sexual Aid Utilization and Efficacy After Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report sexual health-related quality of life outcomes and utilization and efficacy of sexual aids in a contemporary cohort of patients treated for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2013, 471 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer were treated on 2 institutional protocols (NCT01766492, NCT01618851) or on a prospective institutional registry with patient-reported health-related quality of life. All patients were treated with ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy. Erectile function (EF) was defined as "firm enough for intercourse" with or without aids per Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (n = 222 at baseline); results apply to this cohort unless specifically noted. Sexual aid utilization and efficacy were patient reported. Multivariable analysis of EF was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 60 months, median age was 67 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. At 24 and 60 months, questionnaire response rates were 86% and 67%, and EF was retained in 53% and 41%, respectively. Baseline sexual aid utilization was 37% (n = 82) and was associated with lower 24-month EF preservation on multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.92). By 60 months, 70% of men had tried aids. Of those who found aids helpful at baseline, 84% to 89% reported continued benefit at 24 to 60 months. Among aid-naïve patients, efficacy was 80% with first-time use within 12 months and 70% more than 12 months after radiation therapy (P = .02). Among men who developed erectile dysfunction but found sexual aids helpful, 25% were not current users at 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of men used sexual aids at baseline, which doubled by 5 years after radiation therapy. Self-reported efficacy was high and sustained. Despite significant declines in EF, a number of men reported helpfulness of aids but were not active users. Future study is required to understand drivers of aid utilization to optimize posttreatment sexual function.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Vessel-sparing Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer to Preserve Erectile Function: A Single-arm Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction remains the most common side effect from radical treatment of localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that the use of vessel-sparing radiotherapy, analogous to the functional anatomy approach of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP), would improve erectile function preservation while maintaining tumor control for men with localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine erectile function rates after vessel-sparing radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in a phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT02958787) at a single academic center. INTERVENTION: Patients received vessel-sparing radiotherapy utilizing a planning MRI and MRI-angiogram to delineate and avoid the erectile vasculature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Both physician- and patient-reported inventories were used to capture erectile function at baseline and at 2 and 5 yr after treatment. Validated model-based comparisons were performed to compare vessel-sparing results to nerve-sparing RP and conventional radiotherapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From 2001 to 2009, 135 men underwent vessel-sparing radiotherapy. After a planned interim analysis, the trial was stopped after meeting the primary endpoint. The median follow-up was 8.7 yr, with a ≥94% response rate to all inventories at each time point. At 5 yr, 88% of patients were sexually active with or without the use of sexual aids. The 2-yr erectile function rates were significantly improved with vessel-sparing radiotherapy (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 71-85%) compared to modeled rates for convention radiotherapy (42%, 95% CI 38-45%; p<0.001) or nerve-sparing prostatectomy (24%, 95% CI 22-27%; p<0.001). At 2 yr after treatment, 87% of baseline-potent men retained erections suitable for intercourse. The 5- and 10-yr rates of biochemical relapse-free survival were 99.3% and 89.9%, and at 5 yr the biochemical failures were limited to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk group. The single-arm design is a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Vessel-sparing radiotherapy appears to more effectively preserve erectile function when compared to historical series and model-predicted outcomes following nerve-sparing RP or conventional radiotherapy, with maintenance of tumor control. This approach warrants independent validation. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this interim analysis we looked at using a novel approach to spare critical erectile structures to preserve erectile function after prostate cancer radiotherapy. We found that almost 90% of patients at 5 yr after treatment remained sexually active, significantly higher than previous studies with surgery or radiotherapy.

Endorectal MRI for risk classification of localized prostate cancer: Radiographic findings and influence on treatment decisions.

PURPOSE: To report the results of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) in patients with localized prostate cancer, and how these images influenced radiotherapeutic management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 122 men with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate referred to radiation oncology underwent 3-T eMRI between 2010 and 2014, to evaluate candidacy for active surveillance (n = 26) and brachytherapy as monotherapy (n = 47), or to further risk stratify intermediate-risk (n = 29) or high-risk (n = 20) men before external beam radiation therapy. By National Comprehensive Cancer Network classification, men had low-risk (28%), intermediate-risk (55%), or high-risk (17%) disease. Multiparametric MRI sequences included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Radiographic extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion (rSVI), and pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) were graded as negative, indeterminate, or positive. A dominant nodule was defined as a nodule≥1.5cm. Changes in management were identified comparing pre-MRI and post-MRI plan of care. RESULTS: The rates of radiographic extracapsular extension, radiographic seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, and dominant nodule were 39%, 7%, 12%, and 28%, respectively. The eMRI identified measurable disease in most patients with an increasing burden of disease (sextants involved, median nodule size) according to risk category (P<0.01). Changes in management after eMRI occurred in 18%, including 9%, 18%, and 33% of men with low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk disease (P = 0.08), and 12%, 17%, and 22% of men who were candidates for active surveillance, brachytherapy as monotherapy, or external beam radiation therapy (P = 0.48), respectively. CONCLUSION: The eMRI influenced management in a risk-dependent fashion. Further study is required to determine the clinical importance of eMRI findings and to determine whether changes in management can lead to improved clinical outcome.