Investigating the Impact of Patient-Related Factors on Speech Outcomes at 5 Years of Age in Children With a Cleft Palate.

To investigate the relationship between patient-related factors (sex, cleft type, cleft extent, and Robin Sequence [RS]) and speech outcome at 5 years of age for children born with a cleft palate ± lip (CP ± L).3157 Children (1426 female:1731 male) with a nonsyndromic CP ± L, born between 2006 and 2014 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.Perceptual speech analysis utilized the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A) rating and UK National Speech Outcome Standards: Speech Standard 1 (SS1)-speech within the normal range, SS2a-no structurally related speech difficulties or history of speech surgery, and SS3-speech without significant cleft-related articulation difficulties.Odds of achieving SS1 were lower among boys (aOR 0.771 [CI 0.660-0.901]), those with clefts involving the lip and palate (vs palate only) (UCLP-aOR 0.719 [CI 0.591-0.875]; BCLP-aOR 0.360 [CI 0.279-0.463]), and clefts involving the hard palate (incomplete-aOR 0.701 [CI 0.540-0.909]; complete-aOR 0.393 [CI 0.308-0.501]). Similar relationships with these patient factors were observed for SS3. SS2 was affected by the extent of hard palate involvement (complete; aOR 0.449 [CI 0.348-0.580]). Although those with CP and RS were less likely to meet all 3 standards than those without RS, odds ratios were not significant when adjusting for sex and cleft extent.Sex, cleft type, and extent of hard palate involvement have a significant impact on speech outcome at 5 years of age. Incorporating these factors into risk-adjustment models for service-level outcome reporting is recommended.

Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE): a prospective cohort validating study assessing Prostate HistoScanning.

BACKGROUND: Men with negative prostate biopsies or those diagnosed with low-risk or low-volume intermediate-risk prostate cancers often require a second prostate biopsy prior to a treatment decision. Prostate HistoScanning (PHS) is an ultrasound imaging test that might inform prostate biopsy in such men. METHODS: PICTURE was a prospective, paired-cohort validating trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging in men requiring a further biopsy (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01492270) (11 January 2012-29 January 2014). We enrolled 330 men who had undergone a prior TRUS biopsy but where diagnostic uncertainty remained. All eligible men underwent PHS and transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsy (reference standard). Men were blinded to the imaging results until after undergoing TTPM biopsies. We primarily assessed the ability of PHS to rule out clinically significant prostate (negative predictive value [NPV] and sensitivity) for a target histological condition of Gleason ≥4+3 and/or a cancer core length (MCCL) ≥6 mm. We also assessed the role of visually estimated PHS-targeted biopsies. RESULTS: Of the 330 men enrolled, 249 underwent both PHS and TTPM biopsy. Mean (SD) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 (4.98-9.50) ng/ml, median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (SD) gland size 37 (15.5) ml. One hundred and forty six (59%) had no clinically significant cancer. PHS classified 174 (70%) as suspicious. Sensitivity was 70.3% (95% CI 59.8-79.5) and NPV 41.3% (95% CI 27.0-56.8). Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 14.7% (95% CI 9.1-22.0) and 36.8% (95% CI 29.6-44.4), respectively. In all, 213/220 had PHS suspicious areas targeted with targeting sensitivity 13.6% (95% CI 7.3-22.6), specificity 97.6% (95% CI 93.1-99.5), NPV 61.6% (95% CI 54.5-68.4) and PPV 80.0% (95% CI 51.9-95.7). CONCLUSIONS: PHS is not a useful test in men seeking risk stratification following initial prostate biopsy.

Immunohistochemical biomarker validation in highly selective needle biopsy microarrays derived from mpMRI-characterized prostates.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosing prostate cancer routinely involves tissue biopsy and increasingly image guided biopsy using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Excess tissue after diagnosis can be used for research to improve the diagnostic pathway and the vertical assembly of prostate needle biopsy cores into tissue microarrays (TMAs) allows the parallel immunohistochemical (IHC) validation of cancer biomarkers in routine diagnostic specimens. However, tissue within a biopsy core is often heterogeneous and cancer is not uniformly present, resulting in needle biopsy TMAs that suffer from highly variable cancer detection rates that complicate parallel biomarker validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate cores with the highest tumor burden (in terms of Gleason score and/or maximum cancer core length) were obtained from 249 patients in the PICTURE trial who underwent transperineal template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals preceded by mpMRI. From each core, 2 mm segments containing tumor or benign tissue (as assessed on H&E pathology) were selected, excised and embedded vertically into a new TMA block. TMA sections were then IHC-stained for the routinely used prostate cancer biomarkers PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB and assessed using the h-score method. H-scores in patient matched malignant and benign tissue were correlated with the Gleason grade of the original core and the MRI Likert score for the sampled prostate area. RESULTS: A total of 2240 TMA cores were stained and IHC h-scores were assigned to 1790. There was a statistically significant difference in h-scores between patient matched malignant and adjacent benign tissue that is independent of Likert score. There was no association between the h-scores and Gleason grade or Likert score within each of the benign or malignant groups. CONCLUSION: The construction of highly selective TMAs from prostate needle biopsy cores is possible. IHC data obtained through this method are highly reliable and can be correlated with imaging. IHC expression patterns for PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB are distinct in malignant and adjacent benign tissue but did not correlate with mpMRI Likert score.

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and compared visual estimation to image fusion targeting in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective, ethics committee approved PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) enrolled 249 consecutive patients from January 11, 2012 to January 29, 2014. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and were blinded to the results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. In 200 men with a lesion this was preceded by visual estimation and image fusion targeted biopsies. As the primary study end point clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or any grade of cancer with a length of 6 mm or greater. Other definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ± SD patient age was 62.6 ± 7 years, median prostate specific antigen was 7.17 ng/ml (IQR 5.25-10.09), mean primary lesion size was 0.37 ± 1.52 cc with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 targeted cores per lesion on visual estimation and image fusion combined, and a mean of 48.7 ± 12.3 transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy cores. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies detected 97 clinically significant prostate cancers (48.5%) and 85 insignificant cancers (42.5%). Overall multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies detected 81 clinically significant prostate cancers (40.5%) and 63 insignificant cancers (31.5%). In the 18 cases (9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 34 cases (17%) on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy but not on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and approximately half was present in nontargeted areas. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found on visual estimation and image fusion in 53 (31.3%) and 48 (28.4%) of the 169 patients (McNemar test p = 0.5322). Visual estimation missed 23 clinically significant prostate cancers (13.6%) detected by image fusion. Image fusion missed 18 clinically significant prostate cancers (10.8%) detected by visual estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies are accurate for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and reducing the over diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximize detection visual estimation as well as image fusion targeted biopsies are required.