BackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) diagnosis by means of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a current challenge for the development of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools. An innovative CAD-software (Watson Elementary™) was proposed to achieve high sensitivity and specificity, as well as to allege a correlate to Gleason grade.Aim/ObjectiveTo assess the performance of Watson Elementary™ in automated PCa diagnosis in our hospital´s database of MRI-guided prostate biopsies.MethodsThe evaluation was retrospective for 104 lesions (47 PCa, 57 benign) from 79, 64.61±6.64 year old patients using 3T T2-weighted imaging, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) maps and dynamic contrast enhancement series. Watson Elementary™ utilizes signal intensity, diffusion properties and kinetic profile to compute a proportional Gleason grade predictor, termed Malignancy Attention Index (MAI). The analysis focused on (i) the CAD sensitivity and specificity to classify suspect lesions and (ii) the MAI correlation with the histopathological ground truth.ResultsThe software revealed a sensitivity of 46.80% for PCa classification. The specificity for PCa was found to be 75.43% with a positive predictive value of 61.11%, a negative predictive value of 63.23% and a false discovery rate of 38.89%. CAD classified PCa and benign lesions with equal probability (P 0.06, χ2 test).Accordingly, receiver operating characteristic analysis suggests a poor predictive value for MAI with an area under curve of 0.65 (P 0.02), which is not superior to the performance of board certified observers. Moreover, MAI revealed no significant correlation with Gleason grade (P 0.60, Pearson´s correlation).ConclusionThe tested CAD software for mpMRI analysis was a weak PCa biomarker in this dataset. Targeted prostate biopsy and histology remains the gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis.

ObjectiveProstate lesions detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are classified for their malignant potential according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS™2). In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI with and without gadolinium, with emphasis on the added diagnostic value of the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE).Materials and methodsThe study was retrospective for 286 prostate lesions / 213 eligible patients, n = 116/170, and 49/59% malignant for the peripheral (Pz) and transitional zone (Tz), respectively. A stereotactic MRI-guided prostate biopsy served as the histological ground truth. All patients received a mpMRI with DCE. The influence of DCE in the prediction of malignancy was analyzed by blinded assessment of the imaging protocol without DCE and the DCE separately.ResultsSignificant (CSPca) and insignificant (IPca) prostate cancers were evaluated separately to enhance the potential effects of the DCE in the detection of CSPca. The Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC), sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Spe) of PIRADS-without-DCE in the Pz was 0.70/0.47/0.86 for all cancers (IPca and CSPca merged) and 0.73/0.54/0.82 for CSPca. PIRADS-with-DCE for the same patients showed ROC-AUC/Se/Spe of 0.70/0.49/0.86 for all Pz cancers and 0.69/0.54/0.81 for CSPca in the Pz, respectively, p>0.05 chi-squared test. Similar results for the Tz, AUC/Se/Spe for PIRADS-without-DCE was 0.75/0.61/0.79 all cancers and 0.67/0.54/0.71 for CSPca, not influenced by DCE (0.66/0.47/0.81 for all Tz cancers and 0.61/0.39/0.75 for CSPca in Tz). The added Se and Spe of DCE for the detection of CSPca was 88/34% and 78/33% in the Pz and Tz, respectively.ConclusionDCE showed no significant added diagnostic value and lower specificity for the prediction of CSPca compared to the non-enhanced sequences. Our results support that gadolinium might be omitted without mitigating the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI for prostate cancer.

(1) Purpose: Predisposing factors to osteoporosis (OP) as well as dual-source x-ray densitometry (DXA) steer therapeutic decisions by determining the FRAX index. This study examines the reliability of a standard risk factor questionnaire in OP-screening. (2) Methods: n = 553 eligible questionnaires encompassed 24 OP-predisposing factors. Reliability was assessed using DXA as a gold standard. Multiple logistic regression and Spearman’s correlations, as well as the confounding influence of age and body mass index, were analyzed in SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). (3) Results: Our study revealed low patient self-awareness regarding OP and its risk factors. One out of every four patients reported a positive history for osteoporosis not confirmed by DXA. The extraordinarily high incidence of rheumatoid arthritis and thyroid disorders likely reflect confusion with other diseases or health anxiety. FRAX-determining risk factors such as malnutrition, liver insufficiency, prior fracture without trauma, and glucocorticoid therapy did not correlate with increased OP incidence, altogether demonstrating how inaccurate survey information could influence therapeutic decisions on osteoporosis. (4) Conclusions: Contradictive results and a low level of patient self-awareness suggest a high degree of uncertainty and low reliability of the current OP risk factor survey.