RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at improving the discrimination of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) score 3 suspicious prostate cancer lesions using lesion volume evaluation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred five PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 lesions were submitted to transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion-targeted biopsy. The lesion volumes were estimated on diffusion-weighted imaging sequence and distributed in PI-RADS 3a (LV < 0.5 mL) and PI-RADS 3b (LV ≥ 0.5 mL) subcategories, using a 0.5 mL cutoff value. Data were retrospectively matched with histopathological findings from the biopsy. Assuming that lesions with LV < or ≥ 0.5 mL were respectively not eligible (benign and indolent PCa lesions) or eligible for biopsy (significant PCa lesions), the diagnostic accuracy of lesion volume in determining clinically significant PCa at biopsy was evaluated using a bi- or multivariate model. RESULTS: About 55.1% and 44.9% of lesions were distributed in subcategories 3a and 3b, respectively. The overall PI-RADS score 3 detection rate was 273%. 3.5% (1.95% of total), and 25% (11.7% of total) significant PCa were found in PI-RADS 3a and 3b subcategory, respectively. The method showed 85.2% sensitivity, 61.2% specificity, 25% positive predictive value, and 96.5% negative predictive value and avoided 55.1% of unnecessary biopsies. The diagnostic accuracy in determining significant PCa at biopsy was 73.2% or 86.5% depending on whether lesion volume was used alone or in combination with prostate volume and patient age in a multivariate model. CONCLUSION: 0.5 mL lesion volume cutoff value significantly discriminates fusion-targeted biopsy need in PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 lesions and its diagnostic accuracy improves when it combines with prostate volume and age in a multivariate model.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: About 20% of patients with a diagnosis of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) present directly with metastatic disease. The aim of the present manuscript is to describe, for the first time a RCC metastasis located to the distal female urethra and to present an update on metastatic locations to the male spermatic cord. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report two cases of rare RCC metastases. The first concerns a 92-year-old female patient who came to our attention for recurrent urethral bleeding, which was initially believed to be secondary to urethral mucosal ectropion. Pathology demonstrated a RCC metastasis. The second concerns a 67-year-old male patient with a previous history of RCC who came to our attention for the finding of palpable, mobile and indolent right inguinal lump. Given the past history of malignancy, it was excised and revealed to be a RCC metastasis. DISCUSSION: In the first case, the pathologic specimen allowed the detection of an unknown renal tumor, whereas in the second, the previous neoplastic history of the patient has led clinicians to focus on a possible neoplastic recurrence, perform a correct excision of the node, and begin an early systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These cases are emblematic of possible unexpected RCC metastasis. These findings should be taken into account in order to clarify the differential diagnosis and to address these patients to a correct therapeutic course.
