scholarly journals Abstract No. 513 Magnetic resonance imaging–guided renal biopsy: tertiary cancer center experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. S222
Author(s):  
M. Abdelsalam ◽  
S. Sabir ◽  
A. Megahed ◽  
A. Kattan ◽  
A. Maaly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Renal Biopsy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

scholarly journals Clinical importance of second-opinion interpretations by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center: magnetic resonance imaging for endometrial cancer staging

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inês Alves ◽  
Teresa Margarida Cunha
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Cancer Staging ◽  
Second Opinion ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

Abstract Objective: To determine whether there are substantive differences between the initial interpretations of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans acquired at outside facilities and the second-opinion interpretations of radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology at a tertiary cancer center, among patients referred for endometrial cancer staging. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative analysis of 153 initial and second-opinion MRI reports for endometrial cancer staging officially submitted for review by radiologists specializing in gynecologic oncology. For each case, the relationship between the initial and second-opinion reports, regarding the suggested diagnosis and the clinically relevant MRI findings reported, was categorized as "agreement" or "disagreement". Histopathology was used in order to establish the definitive diagnosis. Results: Disagreement was found in 58 (37.9%) of the 153 cases. Second-opinion interpretations reported findings that affected the preoperative cancer staging and could have led to a change in treatment in 38 cases (24.8%); that did not affect the preoperative staging but provided information that was more accurate in 8 (5.2%); and that suggested a new cancer diagnosis in 12 (7.8%). In 37 cases (24.2%), there was a potential for changes in patient care. Among the 58 cases of disagreement, a definitive (histopathological) diagnosis was made in 41 (70.7%). In 31 (75.6%) of those 41 cases, the second-opinion report was more accurate than was the initial report. Conclusion: Discordant interpretations of MRI examinations, which can have a substantial effect on the clinical management of patients, appear to be common.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the indications for performing magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis at a referral center for cancer, according to the American College of Radiology criteria

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Silva Boaventura ◽  
Daniel Padilha Rodrigues ◽  
Olimpio Antonio Cornehl Silva ◽  
Fabrício Henrique Beltrani ◽  
Rayssa Araruna Bezerra de Melo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Female Pelvis ◽  
Referral Center ◽  
Acr Criteria ◽  
Pelvic Malignancies ◽  
Gynecologic Neoplasms

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the indications for performing magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis at a referral center for cancer. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center study, conducted by reviewing medical records and imaging reports. We included 1060 female patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis at a cancer center between January 2013 and June 2014. The indications for performing the examination were classified according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) criteria. Results: The mean age of the patients was 52.6 ± 14.8 years, and 49.8% were perimenopausal or postmenopausal. The majority (63.9%) had a history of cancer, which was gynecologic in 29.5% and nongynecologic in 34.4%. Of the patients evaluated, 44.0% had clinical complaints, the most common being pelvic pain (in 11.5%) and bleeding (in 9.8%), and 34.7% of patients had previously had abnormal findings on ultrasound. Most (76.7%) of the patients met the criteria for undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, according to the ACR guidelines. The main indications were evaluation of tumor recurrence after surgical resection (in 25.9%); detection and staging of gynecologic neoplasms (in 23.3%); and evaluation of pelvic pain or of a mass (in 17.1%). Conclusion: In the majority of the cases evaluated, magnetic resonance imaging was clearly indicated according to the ACR criteria. The main indication was local recurrence after surgical treatment of pelvic malignancies, which is consistent with the routine protocols at cancer centers.

scholarly journals Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analyses, Clinical Parameters, and Preoperative Nomograms in the Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-775
Author(s):  
Natalia Majchrzak ◽  
Piotr Cieśliński ◽  
Maciej Głyda ◽  
Katarzyna Karmelita-Katulska
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Specific Site ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cognitive Fusion ◽  
Extraprostatic Extension

Introduction: Proper planning of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is crucial to achieving good oncological results with the possibility of preserving potency and continence. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify the radiological and clinical parameters that can predict the risk of extraprostatic extension (EPE) for a specific site of the prostate. Predictive models and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) data from patients qualified for RP were compared. Material and methods: The study included 61 patients who underwent laparoscopic RP. mpMRI preceded transrectal systematic and cognitive fusion biopsy. Martini, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and Partin Tables nomograms were used to assess the risk of EPE. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for the models and compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the combination of variables that best predicted EPE risk based on final histopathology. Results: The combination of mpMRI indicating or suspecting EPE (odds ratio (OR) = 7.49 (2.31–24.27), p < 0.001) and PSA ≥ 20 ng/mL (OR = 12.06 (1.1–132.15), p = 0.04) best predicted the risk of EPE for a specific side of the prostate. For the prediction of ipsilateral EPE risk, the AUC for Martini’s nomogram vs. mpMRI was 0.73 (p < 0.001) vs. 0.63 (p = 0.005), respectively (p = 0.131). The assessment of a non-specific site of EPE by MSKCC vs. Partin Tables showed AUC values of 0.71 (p = 0.007) vs. 0.63 (p = 0.074), respectively (p = 0.211). Conclusions: The combined use of mpMRI, the results of the systematic and targeted biopsy, and prostate-specific antigen baseline can effectively predict ipsilateral EPE (pT3 stage).

Evaluation of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy versus 12-Core standard biopsy with pre-biopsy 1.5 Tesla multi-parametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer in a community cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 139-139
Author(s):  
Mark Gregory Bandyk
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prospective Trial ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Biopsy Technique

139 Background: Academic centers report the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy increases detection of high−risk and high Gleason score (GS) prostate cancer (CaP) as compared to standard 12−core biopsy among men for suspected CaP. This prospective trial evaluated the utility and benefits of performing MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in a community cancer center. Methods: Men suspected of CaP underwent prostate multi−parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using a 1.5 tesla GE 450W GEMS magnet with a 32 channel phased anterior array coil to identify suspicious regions for prostate cancer. Regions were graded with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI−RADS V2.0) by a single radiologist (5 years of experience). Men underwent concurrent MRI/TRUS fusion targeted and 12−core standard biopsies using an image guided fusion system. This prospective trial evaluated 79 men for number of positive biopsies by GS, biopsy technique and cohort (biopsy naïve, prior negative biopsy and CaP under surveillance). McNemar test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Study group included 79 men (mean age 66 years) with mean PSA 8.25 ng/mL. Cancer detection rate (CDR) and GS for the entire cohort by biopsy technique were determined. Overall, target biopsy (TB) diagnosed more GS ≥ 7 versus the 12−core standard biopsy (SB) (26 vs 18) and less GS6 (13 vs 21) (p = 0.057). Exact agreement was demonstrated in 66% of cases between TB and SB for GS ≥ 7, GS6 and no cancer. SB found cancers in 11 men missed by the TB, but 73% of these cancers were low grade GS6. TB of higher PI−RADS category lesions found more and higher grade cancers: 73% PI−RAD 5, GS ≥ 7; 80% PI−RAD 4, GS > 6; and 73% PI−RAD 3 were benign. In the biopsy naïve group (32 men), TB detected more GS ≥ 7 than SB (19 vs 13) (p = 0.11). Conclusions: Utilizing a mpMRI with a 1.5 tesla magnet and no endorectal coil, these encouraging preliminary results suggest MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy can be validated in the community for CaP detection. Results support a new paradigm in CaP detection utilizing pre−biopsy mpMRI and targeting higher PI−RADS lesions possibly eliminating SB.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Chest at a Cancer Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-39
Author(s):  
Juliana Cristina Duarte Braga ◽  
Diogo Fábio Dias Teixeira ◽  
Bruno Hochhegger ◽  
Pablo Rydz ◽  
Jefferson Luiz Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Current Therapy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Imaging Department

Objective: In the present article, we will describe the indications for chest MRI in patients diagnosed with malignancy and its relevant role in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions and in detecting metastases.  Materials and methods: Single-center, retrospective, analytical imaging and chart-review study of all patients with a diagnosis of cancer who underwent chest MRI at the Imaging Department of A.C. Camargo Cancer Center from January 2014 through December 2016. Information was collected through an electronic questionnaire and exported to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data were then processed in Action Stat 3 software. Descriptive analysis was conducted with conventional measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and dispersion (range, variance, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation), as well as calculation of absolute and relative frequencies. Results: The leading indication for chest MRI was post-treatment follow-up. Chest MRI was most often requested by the Departments of Thoracic Surgery and Clinical Oncology. In most cases, the results of chest MRI led to maintenance of the current treatment plan rather than a change in management. Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging has several applications in evaluation of the chest, and can be used by various specialties and subspecialties. In the present study, post-treatment follow-up and maintenance of current therapy were the most common indication and management, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document