RESUMEN
18F-rhPSMA-7.3, the lead compound of a new class of radiohybrid prostate-specific membrane antigen (rhPSMA) ligand, is currently in phase III trials for prostate cancer (PCa) imaging. Here, we describe our experience in primary PCa staging. Methods: We retrospectively identified 279 patients with primary PCa who underwent 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET/CT (staging cohort). A subset of patients (83/279) subsequently underwent prostatectomy with lymph node (LN) dissection without prior treatment (efficacy cohort). The distribution of tumor lesions was determined for the staging cohort and stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk score. Involvement of pelvic LNs was assessed retrospectively by 3 masked independent central readers, and a majority rule was used for analysis. Standard surgical fields were rated on a 5-point scale independently for PET and for morphologic imaging. Results were compared with histopathologic findings on a patient, right-vs.-left, and template basis. Results: For the staging cohort, 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET was positive in 275 of 279 (98.6%), 106 of 279 (38.0%), 46 of 279 (16.5%), 65 of 279 (23.3%), and 5 of 279 (1.8%) patients for local, pelvic nodal, extrapelvic nodal, metastatic bone, and visceral metastatic disease, respectively. In the efficacy cohort, LN metastases were present in 24 of 83 patients (29%) and were located in 48 of 420 (11%) resected templates and in 33 of 166 (19.9%) hemipelvic templates in histopathology. The majority vote results showed that patient-level sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for pelvic nodal metastases were 66.7% (95% CI, 44.7%-83.6%), 96.6% (95% CI, 87.3%-99.4%), and 88.0% (95% CI, 78.5%-93.8%), respectively, for 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET and 37.5% (95% CI, 19.6%-59.2%), 91.5% (95% CI, 80.6%-96.8%), and 75.9% (95% CI, 65.0%-84.3%), respectively, for morphologic imaging. 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 showed higher interobserver agreement than morphologic imaging (patient-level Fleiss κ = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.47-0.62] vs. 0.24 [95% CI, 0.17-0.31]). A mean SUV ratio of 6.6 (95% CI, 5.2-8.1) documented a high image contrast between local tumors and adjacent low urinary tracer retention. Conclusion: 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET offers diagnostic performance superior to morphologic imaging for primary N-staging of newly diagnosed PCa, shows lower interreader variation, and offers good distinction between primary-tumor activity and bladder background activity. With increasing National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, an increasing frequency of extraprostatic tumor lesions was observed.
Asunto(s)
Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Humanos , Ligandos , Masculino , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones/métodos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Resumen Los parámetros de calidad para endoscopia digestiva alta han introducido indicadores intraprocedimiento, dentro de los cuales la adecuada visibilidad de la mucosa, libre de saliva, moco o burbujas, puede aumentar la posibilidad de detección de lesiones en fase temprana. Sin embargo, el uso de mucolíticos y antiburbujas ha mostrado gran variabilidad de eficiencia según las soluciones, concentraciones, tiempos de exposición y escala de visibilidad aplicados. Objetivos: determinar la efectividad de diferentes soluciones de premedicación para la limpieza de la mucosa digestiva; validar, mediante una prueba de concordancia interobservador, una nueva escala de adecuada visualización de la mucosa (TVMS) para el esófago, estómago y duodeno; y reportar eventos adversos o complicaciones relacionadas con las soluciones utilizadas y los procedimientos realizados. Material y métodos: estudio de cohortes prospectivas comparativas. Se incluyeron 412 pacientes adultos, ASA I y ASA II, para endoscopia diagnóstica bajo sedación consciente, distribuidos en 6 cohortes similares, divididas en dos grupos: no premedicación, 2 cohortes C1 (ayuno de 6 a 8 horas)y C2 (agua 100 mL); premedicación, 4 cohortes C3 a C6 (C3: agua 100 m L + simeticona 1000 mg; C4: agua 100 mL + simeticona 200 mg + N-acetilcisteína 600 mg; C5: agua 100 mL + simeticona 200 mg + N-acetilcisteína 1000 mg; C6: agua 100 mL + simeticona 200 mg + Hedera helix 70 mg). Se ingirió la solución 15 a 30 minutos antes del paso por cricofaríngeo. Se realizó la prueba de Kappa para medir la concordancia interobservador de la escala TVMS. Resultados: De 412 pacientes, 58% fueron de sexo femenino; 23% (136) fue de cohortes C1 y C2 y 67% (276) fue de cohortes C3 a C6. El tiempo medio de exposición a cada solución fue de 24,4 minutos. El volumen de lavado para lograr una adecuada visualización fue significativamente diferente entre ambos grupos: en los pacientes con premedicación se utilizaron 75,6 mL, mientras que en los pacientes sin premedicación se utilizaron 124 mL (p = 0,000), con una calidad de TVMS excelente de 88,7% frente al 41,4%, respectivamente. La cohorte C4 (agua 100 mL + simeticona 200 mg + N-acetilcisteína 600 mg) mostró ser la más efectiva con una diferencia significativa (p = 0,001) frente a C1 (ayuno) y C2 (placebo con agua 100 mL), y también tuvo una eficiencia superior frente a C3, C5 y C6 en su orden. No se presentaron eventos adversos o complicaciones en relación con la endoscopia, la sedación y los productos usados en la premedicación. Conclusiones: la solución más efectiva como premedicación para lograr una excelente visibilidad de la mucosa digestiva correspondió a la cohorte C4 (SIM 200 + NAC 600 + H2O 100 mL). La escala TVMS propuesta es una herramienta muy completa y fácil de aplicar por más de un observador. La premedicación ingerida, con antiburbuja, mucolítico y agua hasta 100 mL, entre 15 y 30 minutos previos a endoscopia, es segura en las condiciones descritas en este estudio.
Abstract Quality parameters for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy have introduced intraprocedural indicators, including adequate mucosal visualization free of saliva, mucus, or bubbles, which may increase the possibility of early-stage injury detection. The use of mucolytics and anti-foaming agents has shown great efficiency variability depending on the type of solution, concentrations, exposure times and visibility scale applied. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of different premedication solutions for cleaning the digestive mucosa; to validate, by means of an interobserver concordance test, a new scale for the adequate visualization of the mucosa (TVMS) for the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum; and to report adverse events or complications associated with the solutions used and the procedures performed. Material and methods: Prospective, comparative cohort study. 412 adult patients, ASA I and ASA II, were included for diagnostic endoscopy under conscious sedation. They were distributed in 6 similar cohorts and divided into two groups: non-premedication, 2 in C1 (fasting 6 to 8 hours) and C2 (water 100 mL) cohorts; premedication, 4 C3 to C6 cohorts (C3: water 100 mL + simethicone 1000 mg; C4: water 100 ml + simethicone 200 mg + N-acetylcysteine 600 mg; C5: water 100 ml + simethicone 200 mg + N-acetylcysteine 1000 mg; C6: water 100 ml + simethicone 200 mg + Hedera helix 70 mg). The solution was swallowed 15 to 30 minutes passing through the cricopharyngeus muscle. The Kappa test was performed to measure interobserver concordance of the TVMS scale. Results: Of 412 patients, 58% were female; 23% (136) were included in the C1 and C2 cohorts; and 67% (276) were in the C3 to C6 cohorts. The average exposure time to each solution was 24.4 minutes. The wash volume for proper visualization was significantly different between the two groups. In premedicated patients, 75.6 mL of solution were used, while in patients without premedication, 124 mL were used (p = 0.000), with an excellent quality of TVMS of 88.7% versus 41.4%, respectively. The C4 cohort (water 100 mL + simethicone 200 mg + N-acetylcysteine 600 mg) was the most effective with a significant difference (p= 0.001) compared with the C1 (fasting) and C2 (placebo with water 100 mL) cohorts. It also had better efficiency compared to the C3, C5 and C6 cohorts in that order. There were no adverse events or complications associated with endoscopy, sedation, or premedication products. Conclusions: The most effective solution as a premedication to achieve excellent visibility of the digestive mucosa was that used in the C4 cohort (SIM 200 + NAC 600 + H2OR 100 mL). The proposed TVMS scale is a very complete and easy tool to apply by more than one observer. Premedication ingested, with anti-foam, mucolytic and water up to 100 mL, between 15 and 30 minutes before endoscopy, is safe under the conditions described in this study.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Premedicación , Acetilcisteína , Simeticona , Hedera , Soluciones , Endoscopía GastrointestinalRESUMEN
Objectives: To determine the reproducibility of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) resectability status classification for pancreatic cancer. Background: The NCCN classification defines 3 resectability classes (resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced), according to vascular invasion. It is used to recommend different approaches and stratify patients during clinical trials. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, observational study (trial ID: NCT03673423). Main outcome measure was the interobserver agreement of tumor assignment to different resectability classes and quantification of vascular invasion degrees. Agreement was measured by Fleiss' k (k = 1 perfect agreement; k = 0 agreement by chance). Sixty-nine computed tomography (CT) scans of pathologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma were independently reviewed in a blinded fashion by 22 observers from 11 hospitals (11 surgeons and 11 radiologists). Rating differences between surgeons or radiologists and between hospitals with different volumes (≥60 or <60 resections/year) were assessed. Results: Complete agreement among 22 observers was recorded in 5 CT scans (7.2%), whereas 25 CT scans (36.2%) were variously assigned to all 3 resectability classes. Interobserver agreement varied from fair to moderate (Fleiss' k range: 0.282-0.555), with the lowest agreement for borderline resectable tumors. Assessing vascular contact ≤180° had the lowest agreement for all vessels (k range: 0.196-0.362). The highest concordance was recorded for venous invasion >180° (k range: 0.619-0.756). Neither reviewers' specialty nor hospital volume influenced the agreement. Conclusions: There is high variability in the assignment to resectability categories, which may compromise the reliability of treatments recommendations and the evidence of trials stratifying patients in resectability classes. Criteria should be revised to allow a reproducible classification.