WeChat Mini Program
Old Version Features

PD62-04 EARLY EXPERIENCE WITH A STRUCTURED MULTIDISCIPLINARY QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROTOCOL ON RECONCILING DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PI-RADS 4 LESIONS AND TARGETED BIOPSY HISTOLOGY

Journal of Urology(2024)SCI 1区

Cited 0|Views24
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety III (PD62)1 May 2024PD62-04 EARLY EXPERIENCE WITH A STRUCTURED MULTIDISCIPLINARY QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROTOCOL ON RECONCILING DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PI-RADS 4 LESIONS AND TARGETED BIOPSY HISTOLOGY Sriram Deivasigamani, Srinath Kotamarti, Mahdi Mottaghi, Rajan Gupta, and Thomas J. Polascik Sriram DeivasigamaniSriram Deivasigamani , Srinath KotamartiSrinath Kotamarti , Mahdi MottaghiMahdi Mottaghi , Rajan GuptaRajan Gupta , and Thomas J. PolascikThomas J. Polascik View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008656.89655.67.04AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: PI-RADS 4 lesions are considered to have a "high" likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, patients undergoing targeted biopsy have a range of histologic findings. Understanding discordant cases is critical to improve diagnostic accuracy and inform subsequent management. We studied early findings from the implementation of a multidisciplinary Quality Improvement (QI) protocol for reconciling discordance and evaluating the potential heterogeneity of PI-RADS 4. METHODS: Patients with mpMRI PI-RADS 4 lesions undergoing fusion-targeted biopsy from Jan 2017 to May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed at Duke Health. The discordant targeted biopsy pathology (benign/GG1) was evaluated utilizing a QI protocol, including mpMRI re-review and a reverse fusion technique to determine whether targeted biopsies appeared to accurately sample the region of interest (ROI). We also investigated the potential heterogeneity of the PI-RADS 4 category itself. Lesions were sub-categorized as having higher suspicion (PI-RADS 4+) or lower suspicion (PI-RADS 4-) based on ADC values <1000 mm2/s for peripheral zone ROI or <800 mm2/s for transition zone ROI utilizing the area suspected to have the highest grade at QI protocol mpMRI re-review. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) for PI-RADS 4 lesions overall and the Cancer Detection Rate (CDR) for subcategorized lesions, PI-RADS 4+ and PI-RADS 4- were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients with 286 lesions were reviewed. Before re-review, PI-RADS 4 PPV for >GG1 and >GG2 lesions were 0.55 and 0.34, increasing to 0.67 and 0.43 following radiologic reconciliation. Lesion subcategorization based on ADC value as having higher suspicion (4+) and lower suspicion (4-) resulted in 158 and 117 lesions, with reverse-fusion analysis revealing that 61% and 17% of lesions contained csPCa, respectively. Subgroup analysis among PI-RADS 4+ lesions led to an increase in the CDR to 75% and 61% for >GG1 and >GG2, revealing that 52% of PI-RADS 4+ contained csPCa, compared to only 12% of PI-RADS 4- lesions with PPV closer to PI-RADS 3 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a multidisciplinary QI protocol to review discordant cases of PI-RADS 4 improves diagnostic accuracy and guides subsequent management. Our findings highlight the known heterogeneity of this category, suggesting the potential value of PI-RADS 4 subcategorization. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1286 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Sriram Deivasigamani More articles by this author Srinath Kotamarti More articles by this author Mahdi Mottaghi More articles by this author Rajan Gupta More articles by this author Thomas J. Polascik More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
More
Translated text
求助PDF
上传PDF
Bibtex
AI Read Science
AI Summary
AI Summary is the key point extracted automatically understanding the full text of the paper, including the background, methods, results, conclusions, icons and other key content, so that you can get the outline of the paper at a glance.
Example
Background
Key content
Introduction
Methods
Results
Related work
Fund
Key content
  • Pretraining has recently greatly promoted the development of natural language processing (NLP)
  • We show that M6 outperforms the baselines in multimodal downstream tasks, and the large M6 with 10 parameters can reach a better performance
  • We propose a method called M6 that is able to process information of multiple modalities and perform both single-modal and cross-modal understanding and generation
  • The model is scaled to large model with 10 billion parameters with sophisticated deployment, and the 10 -parameter M6-large is the largest pretrained model in Chinese
  • Experimental results show that our proposed M6 outperforms the baseline in a number of downstream tasks concerning both single modality and multiple modalities We will continue the pretraining of extremely large models by increasing data to explore the limit of its performance
Upload PDF to Generate Summary
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Data Disclaimer
The page data are from open Internet sources, cooperative publishers and automatic analysis results through AI technology. We do not make any commitments and guarantees for the validity, accuracy, correctness, reliability, completeness and timeliness of the page data. If you have any questions, please contact us by email: report@aminer.cn
Chat Paper

要点】:研究通过实施多学科质量改进协议,对PI-RADS 4病变与靶向活检组织学结果不一致的情况进行调和,提高了诊断准确性并指导后续管理。

方法】:采用回顾性研究方法,对 Duke Health 2017年1月至2021年5月间接受融合靶向活检的PI-RADS 4病变患者进行评估,通过质量改进协议对不一致的活检病理进行重新评估。

实验】:共回顾了248位患者的286个病变,使用mpMRI重新审查和反向融合技术评估靶向活检样本的准确性,并根据ADC值将病变分为高嫌疑(PI-RADS 4+)和低嫌疑(PI-RADS 4-)亚组,计算了整体PI-RADS 4病变以及亚组的阳性预测值(PPV)和癌症检测率(CDR)。结果显示,经过放射学调和后,PI-RADS 4病变的PPV有所提高,亚组分析也显示不同嫌疑等级的病变在CDR上有显著差异。