No abstract

Purpose To evaluate transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy to detect prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods 154 men underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy between July 2012 and October 2016. 79/154 patients were biopsied with a TR approach and 75/154 with a TP approach. MRI was retrospectively analyzed according to PI-RADS version 2. PI-RADS scores were compared with histopathological results. Descriptive statistics, accuracy, and negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Histopathological results of first, second, and third MRI targeted biopsy cores were compared to evaluate the impact of one verus multiple targeted cores. Results Detection rates of PCa were 39% for TR biopsy and 75% for TP biopsy. Sensitivity/specificity for tumor detection with PI-RADS ≥ 4 were 81/69% for TR biopsy and 86/84% for TP biopsy. In 31% for TR biopsy and 19% for TP biopsy, PCa was found in the second or third MRI targeted biopsy core only. Conclusion MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy may be conducted with the TR as well as the TP approach with high accuracy, giving more flexibility for diagnosis and the option for focal treatment of PCa.

Recently, a new variant of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILBC) with solid‐papillary‐like growth pattern has been described. We present a case of ILBC with solid‐papillary‐like growth pattern in the main tumour mass and classical invasive lobular growth pattern in adjacent satellite foci. The two tumour components were subjected to comprehensive molecular analyses. Both components were ER/PR‐positive, HER2‐negative, and showed a complete loss of E‐cadherin and beta‐catenin protein expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry. Gene expression profiling classified the main tumour and a satellite focus as luminal‐B and luminal‐A subtypes, respectively. Whole‐genome copy number profiles were highly similar in both tumour components. Shared copy number alterations (CNAs) included gains of chromosome 1q21.1–q43 and losses of chromosome 16q11.2–q24.3, the locus of the CDH1/E‐cadherin tumour suppressor gene. CNAs detected only in the main tumour included a gain of chromosome 20q12–q13.33 and a loss of chromosome 1p36.33–p34.3, which has recently been associated with the solid variant of ILBC. Next generation sequencing revealed an identical, truncating CDH1 mutation (p.G169fs*5) in both tumour components confirming a common clonal ancestry. In conclusion, we confirm the recently described variant of ILBC with solid‐papillary‐like growth pattern and provide evidence that it evolves from classical ILBC by subclonal evolution.

IntroductionObjective of our study was to determine the agreement between version 1 (v1) and v2 of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy, their inter-observer agreement and practicability.Material and MethodsmpMRI including T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) of 54 consecutive patients, who subsequently underwent MRI-guided in-bore biopsy were re-analyzed according to PI-RADS v1 and v2 by two independent readers. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was assessed using ROC-curve analysis. Agreement between PI-RADS versions and observers was calculated and the time needed for scoring was determined.ResultsMRI-guided biopsy revealed PCa in 31 patients. Diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa was equivalent with both PI-RADS versions for reader 1 with sensitivities and specificities of 84%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8–1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 100%/74% (AUC = 0.92 95% CI[0.8–1]) for PI-RADS v2. Reader 2 achieved similar diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity of 74%/91% (AUC = 0.88 95%CI[0.8–1]) for PI-RADS v1 and 81%/91% (AUC = 0.91 95%CI[0.8–1]) for PI-RADS v2. Agreement between scores determined with different PI-RADS versions was good (reader 1: κ = 0.62, reader 2: κ = 0.64). Inter-observer agreement was moderate with PI-RADS v2 (κ = 0.56) and fair with v1 (κ = 0.39). The time required for building the PI-RADS score was significantly lower with PI-RADS v2 compared to v1 (24.7±2.3 s vs. 41.9±2.6 s, p<0.001).ConclusionAgreement between PI-RADS versions was high and both versions revealed high diagnostic accuracy for detection of PCa. Due to better inter-observer agreement for malignant lesions and less time demand, the new PI-RADS version could be more practicable for clinical routine.

Comparably little is known about breast cancer (BC) risks in women from families tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations despite an indicative family history, as opposed to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We determined the age‐dependent risks of first and contralateral breast cancer (FBC, CBC) both in noncarriers and carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, who participated in an intensified breast imaging surveillance program. The study was conducted between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2017, at 12 university centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Two cohorts were prospectively followed up for incident FBC (n = 4,380; 16,398 person‐years [PY], median baseline age: 39 years) and CBC (n = 2,993; 10,090 PY, median baseline age: 42 years). Cumulative FBC risk at age 60 was 61.8% (95% CI 52.8–70.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 43.2% (95% CI 32.1–56.3%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 15.7% (95% CI 11.9–20.4%) for noncarriers. FBC risks were significantly higher than in the general population, with incidence rate ratios of 23.9 (95% CI 18.9–29.8) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 13.5 (95% CI 9.2–19.1) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 4.9 (95% CI 3.8–6.3) for BRCA1/2 noncarriers. Cumulative CBC risk 10 years after FBC was 25.1% (95% CI 19.6–31.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 6.6% (95% CI 3.4–12.5%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 3.6% (95% CI 2.2–5.7%) for noncarriers. CBC risk in noncarriers was similar to women with unilateral BC from the general population. Further studies are needed to confirm whether less intensified surveillance is justified in women from BRCA1/2 negative families with elevated risk.