RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to (i) validate the Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA (RECIP 1.0) criteria in a cohort of biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients and (ii) determine if this classification could be performed fully automatically using a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model. METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine patients were imaged with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT once at the time of biochemical recurrence and then a second time a median of 6.0 months later to assess disease progression. Standard-of-care treatments were administered to patients in the interim. Whole-body tumour volume was quantified semi-automatically (TTVman) in all patients and using a novel AI method (TTVAI) in a subset (n = 74, the remainder were used in the training process of the model). Patients were classified as having progressive disease (RECIP-PD), or non-progressive disease (non RECIP-PD). Association of RECIP classifications with patient overall survival (OS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log rank test and univariate Cox regression analysis with derivation of hazard ratios (HRs). Concordance of manual and AI response classifications was evaluated using the Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (26/199 = 13.1%) presented with RECIP-PD according to semi-automated delineations, which was associated with a significantly lower survival probability (log rank p < 0.005) and higher risk of death (HR = 3.78 (1.96-7.28), p < 0.005). Twelve patients (12/74 = 16.2%) presented with RECIP-PD according to AI-based segmentations, which was also associated with a significantly lower survival (log rank p = 0.013) and higher risk of death (HR = 3.75 (1.23-11.47), p = 0.02). Overall, semi-automated and AI-based RECIP classifications were in fair agreement (Cohen's k = 0.31). CONCLUSION: RECIP 1.0 was demonstrated to be prognostic in a BCR PCa population and is robust to two different segmentation methods, including a novel AI-based method. RECIP 1.0 can be used to assess disease progression in PCa patients with less advanced disease. This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000608561) on 11 June 2015.
Asunto(s)
Radioisótopos de Galio , Neoplasias de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones/métodos , Pronóstico , Inteligencia Artificial , Oligopéptidos , Ácido Edético , Australia , Neoplasias de la Próstata/patología , Progresión de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
A 37-year-old immunocompromised woman was admitted with palpitations, fevers and myalgias. An echocardiogram demonstrated a mass in the right atrial walls and interatrial septum. Endovascular biopsy of the myocardium revealed neutrophilic necrotising myocarditis isolated to the right atrium. Multiple blood, urine and stool cultures were negative but a high anti-streptolysin O antibody titre was detected. The combination of these findings led to the working diagnosis of necrotising myocarditis. Without a positive culture, it was not possible to definitively state the cause of this condition. She was treated with intravenous antibiotics and continued to improve physically and biochemically on discharge.
Asunto(s)
Tabique Interatrial , Miocarditis , Adulto , Tabique Interatrial/diagnóstico por imagen , Ecocardiografía , Femenino , Atrios Cardíacos/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Miocarditis/diagnóstico , Miocarditis/tratamiento farmacológico , MiocardioRESUMEN
Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a relatively new technique with high sensitivity for breast cancer detection. However, because it only provides limited anatomical information, cross-correlation of MBI findings with conventional breast imaging modalities such as full field digital mammography can be challenging. We report a case of a positive MBI study in a supplemental screening setting, where cross-correlation of MBI, ultrasound, mammogram and biopsy findings was difficult. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) demonstrated a hypervascular lesion at the biopsy clip, helping to prove imaging/histopathological concordance. This case highlights the challenges of incorporating MBI into conventional imaging workup, as well as the use of CESM in problem solving.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Medios de Contraste , Mamografía , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Aumento de la Imagen , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of a peer mentoring program for first year medical interns and to assess the demand for and benefits of such a program in an Australian hospital. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomised controlled study of the impact on first year interns of peer-led mentoring by second and third year interns, undertaken during 2015 at the Royal Perth Hospital, a tertiary teaching hospital. Methods and main outcome measure: Interns were recruited and randomised 1:1 to being assigned or not assigned a mentor. Qualitative outcome data were collected in semi-structured interviews and focus groups at 12 months to assess psychosocial wellbeing and job satisfaction. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 79 interns (67%) applied to participate in the program. Twenty-six mentor-mentee pairs matched by sex and career preferences were established; 27 interns were allocated to the control group. Iterative data analysis identified two major themes related to the value of the mentorship program: aiding navigation through the complex health care system, and enhancing a sense of community. Participants with mentors reported high satisfaction with the program and a positive impact on stress levels, morale, sense of support, job satisfaction, and psychosocial wellbeing compared with participants without mentors. CONCLUSION: An optional peer mentoring program enhances junior doctor support structures, builds a sense of community, and helps participating interns navigate their new professional environment. Our trial provides a feasibility model that could be adapted to local conditions, regionally or nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000455268; 29 March 2018 (retrospective).