Search

With the onset of the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in early 2020, it became apparent that routine administration of the ABR Qualifying and Certifying Exams would be disrupted. Initial intent for postponement was later altered to a recognition that replacement of the existing delivery methodologies was essential. Herein, the authors describe the conceptualization, development, administration, and future implications of the new remote examination delivery platforms., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diagnosis and management of prostate cancer post treatment is a large and complex problem, and care of these patients requires multidisciplinary involvement of imaging, medical, and surgical specialties. Imaging capabilities for evaluation of men with recurrent prostate cancer are rapidly evolving, particularly with PET and MRI. At the same time, treatment options and capabilities are expanding and improving. These recommendations separate patients into three broad categories: (1) patients status post-radical prostatectomy, (2) clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments, and (3) metastatic prostate. This article is a review of the current literature regarding imaging in these settings and the resulting recommendations for imaging. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This AUA Guideline focuses on evaluation/counseling and management of adult patients with clinically localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including solid-enhancing tumors and Bosniak 3/4 complex-cystic lesions., Materials and Methods: Systematic review utilized research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strength Grade A/B/C (Strong/Moderate/Conditional Recommendations, respectively) with additional statements presented as Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions., Results: Great progress has been made since the previous guidelines on management of localized renal masses were released (2009). The current guidelines provide updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation/counseling of patients with clinically localized renal masses, including the evolving role of renal mass biopsy. Given great variability of clinical, oncologic and functional characteristics, index patients are not utilized and the panel advocates individualized counseling/management. Management options (partial nephrectomy/radical nephrectomy/thermal ablation/active surveillance) are reviewed including recent data about comparative effectiveness and potential morbidities. Oncologic issues are prioritized while recognizing that functional outcomes are of great importance for survivorship for most patients with localized kidney cancer. A more restricted role for radical nephrectomy is recommended following well-defined selection criteria. Priority for partial nephrectomy is recommended for clinical T1a lesions, along with selective use of thermal ablation, particularly for tumors ≤3.0 cm. Important considerations for shared decision-making about active surveillance are explicitly defined., Conclusions: Several factors should be considered during counseling/management of patients with clinically localized renal masses, including general health/comorbidities, oncologic potential of the mass, pertinent functional issues and relative efficacy/potential morbidities of various management strategies., (Copyright © 2017 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose To describe outcomes of salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for men with detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and identify associations with outcomes. Patients and Methods A total of 1,106 patients received SRT between January 1987 and July 2013, with median follow-up 8.9 years. Outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier for overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence for biochemical recurrence (BcR), distant metastases (DM), and cause-specific mortality (CSM). Variable associations with outcomes used Cox or Fine-Gray methods, as appropriate. Multiple variable analyses used backward selection with P < .05 for retention. Results In multiple variable analyses, pathologic tumor stage, Gleason score, and pre-SRT PSA were associated with BcR, DM, CSM, and OS; androgen suppression and SRT doses > 68 Gy were associated with BcR; and age was associated with OS. Each pre-SRT PSA doubling increased significantly the relative risk of BcR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; P < .001), DM (HR, 1.32; P < .001), CSM (HR, 1.40; P < .001), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.12; P = .02). Using a pre-SRT PSA cutoff ≤ 0.5 versus > 0.5 ng/mL, 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidences for BcR were 42% versus 56% and 60% versus 68% ( P < .001), DM 7% versus 14% and 13% versus 25% ( P < .001), CSM 1% versus 4% and 6% versus 13% ( P < .001), and OS of 94% versus 92% and 83% versus 73% ( P > .05). Conclusion SRT outcomes are in part affected by factors associated with prostatectomy findings but may be positively affected by using SRT at lower PSA levels, including reductions in BcR, DM, CSM, and all-cause mortality. These findings argue against prolonged monitoring of detectable postprostatectomy PSA levels that delay initiation of SRT.

The purpose of this article is to present an updated set of American College of Radiology consensus guidelines formed from an expert panel on the appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. Recent and relevant literature reviewed by the panel led to establishment of criteria for appropriate use of radiation therapy in postprostatectomy prostate cancer. The discussion includes treatment technique, appropriate dose, field design, and the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Ratings and commentary of the panel on multiple treatment parameters were used to reach consensus. Patients with high-risk pathologic features benefit from postprostatectomy radiation therapy.

Purpose: This study is aimed at understanding and defining the current patterns of care with respect to prostate brachytherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localized disease in the combined academic and community setting., Methods and Materials: A nomogram-based survey was developed at the Seattle Prostate Institute defining the accepted criteria for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were defined as having intermediate-risk prostate cancer if they met one of the following criteria: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/dL, Gleason score (GS) > or = 7, or cT2b or cT2c disease. Additional potential predictive factors including perineural invasion (PNI), GS 3+4 vs. 4+3, and high-volume disease were included., Results: In the absence of PNI, all of those surveyed would perform monotherapy for intermediate-risk patients, GS 7 (3+4) or PSA 10-20, with cT1c and <30% cores +. Up to 80% would perform monotherapy for patients with cT1c, GS 7 (4+3), and <30% cores +. Eighty to 90% of physicians would perform an implant alone with cT2a and either a PSA of 10-20 or GS of 7 (3+4) and <30% cores +. Fifty to 60% of those surveyed stated that they would treat a patient with cT2b disease, GS 7 (3+4), or PSA 11-20, with less than two-thirds of the biopsy cores positive in the absence of PNI., Conclusions: This Patterns of Care (POC) study reveals that certain subsets of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients are considered appropriate candidates for an interstitial implant alone.