Search

Objectives: To test reproducibility and predictive value of a simplified score for assessment of extraprostatic tumor extension (sEPE grade)., Methods: Sixty-five patients (mean age ± SD, 67 years ± 6.3) treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer who underwent 1.5-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) 6 months before surgery were enrolled. sEPE grade was derived from mpMRI metrics: curvilinear contact length > 15 mm (CCL) and capsular bulging/irregularity. The diameter of the index lesion (dIL) was also measured. Evaluations were independently performed by seven radiologists, and inter-reader agreement was tested by weighted Cohen K coefficient. A nested (two levels) Monte Carlo cross-validation was used. The best cut-off value for dIL was selected by means of the Youden J index to classify values into a binary variable termed dIL*. Logistic regression models based on sEPE grade, dIL, and clinical scores were developed to predict pathologic EPE. Results on validation set were assessed by the main metrics of the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) and by decision curve analysis (DCA). Based on our findings, we defined and tested an alternative sEPE grade formulation., Results: Pathologic EPE was found in 31/65 (48%) patients. Average κ w was 0.65 (95% CI 0.51-0.79), 0.66 (95% CI 0.48-0.84), 0.67 (95% CI 0.50-0.84), and 0.43 (95% CI 0.22-0.63) for sEPE grading, CLL ≥ 15 mm, dIL*, and capsular bulging/irregularity, respectively. The highest diagnostic yield in predicting EPE was obtained by combining both sEPE grade and dIL*(ROC-AUC 0.81)., Conclusions: sEPE grade is reproducible and when combined with the dIL* accurately predicts extraprostatic tumor extension., Key Points: • Simple and reproducible mpMRI semi-quantitative scoring system for extraprostatic tumor extension. • sEPE grade accurately predicts extraprostatic tumor extension regardless of reader expertise. • Accurate pre-operative staging and risk stratification for optimized patient management., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

Objectives: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL)., Results: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3., Conclusions: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance., Key Points: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.