Abbreviated Versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate-Cancer Patients: Comparison of Accuracy and Clinical Utility as a Decisional Tool.

(1) Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between full multiparametric contrast-enhanced prostate MRI (mpMRI) and abbreviated dual-sequence prostate MRI (dsMRI) in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) who were candidates for active surveillance. (2) Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of low-risk PCa in the previous 6 months had a mpMRI scan prior to a saturation biopsy and a subsequent MRI cognitive transperineal targeted biopsy (for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). The dsMRI images were obtained from the mpMRI protocol. The images were selected by a study coordinator and assigned to two readers blinded to the biopsy results (R1 and R2). Inter-reader agreement for clinically significant cancer was evaluated with Cohen's kappa. The dsMRI and mpMRI accuracy was calculated for each reader (R1 and R2). The clinical utility of the dsMRI and mpMRI was investigated with a decision-analysis model. (3) Results: The dsMRI sensitivity and specificity were 83.3%, 31.0%, 75.0%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The mpMRI sensitivity and specificity were 91.7%, 31.0%, 83.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The inter-reader agreement for the detection of csPCa was moderate (k = 0.53) and good (k = 0.63) for dsMRI and mpMRI, respectively. The AUC values for the dsMRI were 0.77 and 0.62 for the R1 and R2, respectively. The AUC values for the mpMRI were 0.79 and 0.66 for R1 and R2, respectively. No AUC differences were found between the two MRI protocols. At any risk threshold, the mpMRI showed a higher net benefit than the dsMRI for both R1 and R2. (4) Conclusions: The dsMRI and mpMRI showed similar diagnostic accuracy for csPCa in male candidates for active surveillance.

Comparison of different thresholds of PSA density for risk stratification of PI-RADSv2.1 categories on prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of different PSA density (PSAD) thresholds on the accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) of the Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System v.2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1). METHODS: We retrospectively included 123 biopsy-naïve men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transperineal mpMRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy between April 2019 and October 2020. mpMRI, obtained on a 3.0T magnet with a PI-RADSv2.1-compliant protocol, was read by two radiologists (>1500/>500 mpMRI examinations). csPCa was defined as International Society of Urogenital Pathology grading group ≥2. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to calculate per-index lesion sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of PI-RADSv.2.1 categories after adjusting for PSAD ≥0.10,≥0.15, and ≥0.20 ng/mL ml-1. Per-adjusted category cancer detection rate (CDR) was calculated, and decision analysis performed to compare PSAD-adjusted PI-RADSv.2.1 categories as a biopsy trigger. RESULTS: csPCa prevalence was 43.9%. PSAD-adjustment increased the CDR of PI-RADSv2.1 category 4. Sensitivity/specificity/AUC were 92.6%/53.6%/0.82 for unadjusted PI-RADS, and 85.2%/72.4%/0.84, 62.9%/85.5%/0.83, and 92.4%/53.6%/0.82 when adjusting PI-RADS categories for a 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 ng/ml ml-1 PSAD threshold, respectively. Triggering biopsy for PI-RADS four lesions and PSAD ≥0.10 ng/mL ml-1 was the strategy with greatest net benefit at 30 and 40% risk probability (0.307 and 0.271, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADSv2.1 category four with PSAD ≥0.10 ng/mL ml-1 was the biopsy-triggering cut-off with the highest net benefit in the range of expected prevalence for csPCa. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: 0.10 ng/mL ml-1 is the PSAD threshold with higher clinical utility in stratifying the risk for prostate cancer of PI-RADSv.2.1 categories.

Adicciones: una aproximación filosófica / Addictions: a philosophical approach

A fin de elaborar políticas públicas que tengan alguna efectividad respecto de las adicciones –independientemente de un combate sin cuartel al narcotráico, que en nuestro país no se veriica– es preciso partir de un diagnóstico certero acerca de la coniguración de la subjetividad propia de la modernidad tardía, que debe discutirse y construirse de manera interdisciplinaria pero gira alrededor de la ilosofía, es decir, en torno a una aproximación histórico-conceptual a tal subjetividad. La ilosofía, cuando amerita el nombre de tal, siempre cala más hondo y ve más lejos que cualquier otra disciplina. Prescindir de ella es condenarse a la miopia.