Staging accuracy of MRI of the prostate with special reference to the influence of the time of last ejaculation on the detection of seminal vesicle invasion.

AIM: To evaluate the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PIRADS V2.1) criteria for seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and examine whether the timing of last ejaculation influences the detection of SVI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 68 patients (34 with SVI, 34 without SVI, matching groups by age and prostate volume) who underwent PIRADS V2.1-compliant multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 34 at 1.5 T, 34 at 3 T). Before the examination, the time of last ejaculation (38/68 ≤ 5 days, 30/68 > 5 days) was collected via a questionnaire. The five PIRADS V2.1 criteria for SVI with subsequent overall assessment were evaluated retrospectively by two independent examiners (examiner 1 with >10 years of experience, examiner 2 with 6 months of experience) in a single-blinded fashion for all patients using a questionnaire and a six-point scale (0 = no, 1 = very likely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = possible, 4 = probable, 5 = certain). RESULTS: E1 achieved high specificity (100%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 100%) in the overall assessment, independent of the time of last ejaculation (sensitivity = 76.5%, negative predictive value [NPV] = 81%). The area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.882; for E2, it was 0.765. At ≤5 days, the AUC values of E1 and E2 differed significantly (0.867 versus 0.681, p=0.016), as did the diffusion restriction criterion (0.833 versus 0.681, p=0.028). E1 showed high AUC values independent of time. E2 had better values for all criteria at >5 days than at ≤5 days. There were no significant differences between the examiners in all observations at >5 days. CONCLUSION: The PIRADS V2.1 criteria are well suited for an experienced examiner to detect SVI independent of time point. An inexperienced examiner will benefit from patients being abstinent >5 days prior to MRI.

Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the use of a magnetic tracking and electrocardiography-guided catheter tip confirmation system (TCS) is safe and noninferior to fluoroscopy concerning positioning accuracy of a peripheral inserted central catheter (PICC). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-center study, adult patients scheduled for PICC insertion were assigned 1:1 either to TCS or fluoroscopy. The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison of correct PICC tip position confirmed by X-ray obtained immediately after catheter insertion. Time needed for PICC insertion and insertion-related complications up to 14 days after the procedure were secondary outcomes to be assessed for superiority. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients (62.3 ± 14.4 years, 63.8% male) were included at a single German center between June 2016 and October 2017. Correct PICC tip position was achieved in 84 of 103 TCS (82.4%) and 103 of 104 fluoroscopy patients (99.0%). One-sided 95% lower confidence limit on the difference between proportions was -23.1%. Thus, noninferiority of TCS was not established (p > 0.99). Insertion of PICC took longer with TCS compared to fluoroscopy (8.4 ± 3.7 min vs. 5.0 ± 2.7 min, p < 0.001). Incidence of complications within a mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 2.3 days did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Noninferiority of TCS to fluoroscopy in the incidence of correct PICC tip position was not reached. Ancillary benefit of TCS over fluoroscopy including less radiation exposure and lower resource requirements may nonetheless justify the use of TCS. The study is registered with Clinical.Trials.gov (Identifier: NCT02929368).