Search

Your search keyword '"Verma, Sadhna"' showing total 330 results
Start Over Author "Verma, Sadhna"
330 results on '"Verma, Sadhna"'

3. The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations

Author

Light, Alexander, Mayor, Nikhil, Cullen, Emma, Kirkham, Alex, Padhani, Anwar R., Arya, Manit, Bomers, Joyce G.R., Dudderidge, Tim, Ehdaie, Behfar, Freeman, Alex, Guillaumier, Stephanie, Hindley, Richard, Lakhani, Amish, Pendse, Douglas, Punwani, Shonit, Rastinehad, Ardeshir R., Rouvière, Olivier, Sanchez-Salas, Rafael, Schoots, Ivo G., Sokhi, Heminder K., Tam, Henry, Tempany, Clare M., Valerio, Massimo, Verma, Sadhna, Villeirs, Geert, van der Meulen, Jan, Ahmed, Hashim U., and Shah, Taimur T.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a 2022 update for radiologists

Author

Galgano, Samuel J., Morani, Ajaykumar C., Gopireddy, Dheeraj R., Sharbidre, Kedar, Bates, David D. B., Goenka, Ajit H., Arif-Tiwari, Hina, Itani, Malak, Iravani, Amir, Javadi, Sanaz, Faria, Silvana, Lall, Chandana, Bergsland, Emily, Verma, Sadhna, Francis, Isaac R., Halperin, Daniel M., Chatterjee, Deyali, Bhosale, Priya, and Yano, Motoyo

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel

Author

Westphalen, Antonio C, McCulloch, Charles E, Anaokar, Jordan M, Arora, Sandeep, Barashi, Nimrod S, Barentsz, Jelle O, Bathala, Tharakeswara K, Bittencourt, Leonardo K, Booker, Michael T, Braxton, Vaughn G, Carroll, Peter R, Casalino, David D, Chang, Silvia D, Coakley, Fergus V, Dhatt, Ravjot, Eberhardt, Steven C, Foster, Bryan R, Froemming, Adam T, Fütterer, Jurgen J, Ganeshan, Dhakshina M, Gertner, Mark R, Mankowski Gettle, Lori, Ghai, Sangeet, Gupta, Rajan T, Hahn, Michael E, Houshyar, Roozbeh, Kim, Candice, Kim, Chan Kyo, Lall, Chandana, Margolis, Daniel JA, McRae, Stephen E, Oto, Aytekin, Parsons, Rosaleen B, Patel, Nayana U, Pinto, Peter A, Polascik, Thomas J, Spilseth, Benjamin, Starcevich, Juliana B, Tammisetti, Varaha S, Taneja, Samir S, Turkbey, Baris, Verma, Sadhna, Ward, John F, Warlick, Christopher A, Weinberger, Andrew R, Yu, Jinxing, Zagoria, Ronald J, and Rosenkrantz, Andrew B

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Clinical Research, Cancer, Biomedical Imaging, Urologic Diseases, Prevention, Prostate Cancer, Aging, Detection, screening and diagnosis, 4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prostate, Prostatic Neoplasms, Radiology Information Systems, Reproducibility of Results, Retrospective Studies, Societies, Medical, Medical and Health Sciences, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging, Clinical sciences
Abstract

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Published
2020

8. The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET):A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations

Author

Light, Alexander, Mayor, Nikhil, Cullen, Emma, Kirkham, Alex, Padhani, Anwar R., Arya, Manit, Bomers, Joyce G.R., Dudderidge, Tim, Ehdaie, Behfar, Freeman, Alex, Guillaumier, Stephanie, Hindley, Richard, Lakhani, Amish, Pendse, Douglas, Punwani, Shonit, Rastinehad, Ardeshir R., Rouvière, Olivier, Sanchez-Salas, Rafael, Schoots, Ivo G., Sokhi, Heminder K., Tam, Henry, Tempany, Clare M., Valerio, Massimo, Verma, Sadhna, Villeirs, Geert, van der Meulen, Jan, Ahmed, Hashim U., Shah, Taimur T., Light, Alexander, Mayor, Nikhil, Cullen, Emma, Kirkham, Alex, Padhani, Anwar R., Arya, Manit, Bomers, Joyce G.R., Dudderidge, Tim, Ehdaie, Behfar, Freeman, Alex, Guillaumier, Stephanie, Hindley, Richard, Lakhani, Amish, Pendse, Douglas, Punwani, Shonit, Rastinehad, Ardeshir R., Rouvière, Olivier, Sanchez-Salas, Rafael, Schoots, Ivo G., Sokhi, Heminder K., Tam, Henry, Tempany, Clare M., Valerio, Massimo, Verma, Sadhna, Villeirs, Geert, van der Meulen, Jan, Ahmed, Hashim U., and Shah, Taimur T.

Abstract

Background and objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. Methods:A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. Key findings and limitations: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-w

Published
2024

13. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel

Author

Muller, Berrend G, Fütterer, Jurgen J, Gupta, Rajan T, Katz, Aaron, Kirkham, Alexander, Kurhanewicz, John, Moul, Judd W, Pinto, Peter A, Rastinehad, Ardeshir R, Robertson, Cary, de la Rosette, Jean, Sanchez‐Salas, Rafael, Jones, J Stephen, Ukimura, Osamu, Verma, Sadhna, Wijkstra, Hessel, and Marberger, Michael

Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Aging, Prostate Cancer, Cancer, Biomedical Imaging, Urologic Diseases, Biopsy, Consensus, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Patient Selection, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Assessment, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Interventional, Ultrasound, High-Intensity Focused, Transrectal, United States, prostate cancer, focal therapy, consensus, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate biopsies, Urology & Nephrology, Clinical sciences, Oncology and carcinogenesis
Abstract

ObjectiveTo establish a consensus on the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to identify patients for focal therapy.MethodsUrological surgeons, radiologists, and basic researchers, from Europe and North America participated in a consensus meeting about the use of mpMRI in focal therapy of prostate cancer. The consensus process was face-to-face and specific clinical issues were raised and discussed with agreement sought when possible. All participants are listed among the authors. Topics specifically did not include staging of prostate cancer, but rather identifying the optimal requirements for performing MRI, and the current status of optimally performed mpMRI to (i) determine focality of prostate cancer (e.g. localising small target lesions of ≥0.5 mL), (ii) to monitor and assess the outcome of focal ablation therapies, and (iii) to identify the diagnostic advantages of new MRI methods. In addition, the need for transperineal template saturation biopsies in selecting patients for focal therapy was discussed, if a high quality mpMRI is available. In other words, can mpMRI replace the role of transperineal saturation biopsies in patient selection for focal therapy?ResultsConsensus was reached on most key aspects of the meeting; however, on definition of the optimal requirements for mpMRI, there was one dissenting voice. mpMRI is the optimum approach to achieve the objectives needed for focal therapy, if made on a high quality machine (3T with/without endorectal coil or 1.5T with endorectal coil) and judged by an experienced radiologist. Structured and standardised reporting of prostate MRI is paramount. State of the art mpMRI is capable of localising small tumours for focal therapy. State of the art mpMRI is the technique of choice for follow-up of focal ablation.ConclusionsThe present evidence for MRI in focal therapy is limited. mpMRI is not accurate enough to consistently grade tumour aggressiveness. Template-guided saturation biopsies are no longer necessary when a high quality state of the art mpMRI is available; however, suspicious lesions should always be confirmed by (targeted) biopsy.

Published
2014

14. Effect of atropine 0.01% on progression of myopia

Author

Sen, Snigdha, Yadav, Himanshu, Jain, Anu, Verma, Sadhna, and Gupta, Preeti

Subjects
Atropine -- Complications and side effects -- Patient outcomes, Myopia -- Development and progression, Health
Abstract

Byline: Snigdha. Sen, Himanshu. Yadav, Anu. Jain, Sadhna. Verma, Preeti. Gupta Purpose: Myopia is the most common type of refractive error and the leading cause of functional visual loss. Increased [...]

Published
2022

31. Evaluating the sensitivity of deep learning to inter-reader variations in lesion delineations on bi-parametric MRI in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer

Author

Roge, Ansh, primary, Hiremath, Amogh, additional, Sobota, Michael, additional, Tirumani, Sree Harsha, additional, Kayat Bittencourt, Leonardo, additional, Ream, Justin, additional, Ward, Ryan, additional, Olaniyan, Halimat, additional, Verma, Sadhna, additional, Purysko, Andrei, additional, Madabhushi, Anant, additional, and Shiradkar, Rakesh, additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012

Author

Barentsz, Jelle O., Richenberg, Jonathan, Clements, Richard, Choyke, Peter, Verma, Sadhna, Villeirs, Geert, Rouviere, Olivier, Logager, Vibeke, and Fütterer, Jurgen J.

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results