ライフサイエンスコーパス: mpMRI

1 mpMRI and HM-MRI interpretation time, interobserver agre

2 mpMRI examinations performed between January 2015 and 20

3 mpMRI findings of 80 patients who had a GS of 3 + 3 and

4 mpMRI is a reliable and non-invasive diagnostic method t

5 mpMRI is an imaging technology with high imaging resolut

6 mpMRI outperformed PSMA PET/CT in detecting EPE (P = 0.0

7 mpMRI performs better in identifying EPE and SVI.

8 mpMRI protocol mandates the inclusion of dynamic contras

9 mpMRI was interpreted as the standard of care by 2 exper

10 ctively analyzed radiology reports from 3960 mpMRI examinations (2495 after exclusions) performed bet

11 r PI-RADSv2 5 mpMRI lesions or PI-RADSv2 3-4 mpMRI lesions with (18)F-choline target-to-background ra

12 ) scoring; the first was biopsy for Likert 5 mpMRI lesions or Likert 3-4 lesions with (18)F-choline t

13 8, and the second was biopsy for PI-RADSv2 5 mpMRI lesions or PI-RADSv2 3-4 mpMRI lesions with (18)F-

14 on of significant cancers; AUC 0.76 vs 0.63 (mpMRI + PSA).

15 tion of increased risk of MetS with abnormal mpMRI, particularly cT1, proposes the potential of using

16 -RADS) 2.1 scores for patients with adequate mpMRI and PSMA PET within 6 mo of HIFU.

17 ic membrane antigen (PSMA) 1007 PET/CT after mpMRI can help detect localized clinically significant P

18 measured in men undergoing re-biopsy with an mpMRI image-guided transperineal approach (n = 279, 94 w

19 ad an NPV of 68% and an accuracy of 75%, and mpMRI had an NPV of 88% and an accuracy of 73% for total

20 ogy grade >=2) were calculated for bpMRI and mpMRI using mixed-effects logistic regression modeling.

21 linically significant PCa between bpMRI- and mpMRI-directed TRUS-guided targeted biopsy.

22 (P < 0.001) but not between PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (P = 0.093).

23 coregistration or fusion of PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI) should be used as it improve

24 Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI have similar accuracy in the detection and intrapr

25 d moderate reliability among PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI readers using a 5-point Likert scale (range, 0.53-

26 When (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI were used together, the results conferred a signif

27 patients who underwent both PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI within 3 mo of each other and before radical prost

28 detected and not detected by PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI, focusing on tumors detected solely by PSMA PET/CT

29 tly contoured PCa lesions on PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI, respectively.

30 se To compare the PPVs of bpMRI-directed and mpMRI-directed targeted prostate biopsies.

31 h biopsy only for PI-RADSv2 3-5 lesions, and mpMRI alone with biopsy only for Likert 4-5 lesions.

32 om two centers and underwent VERDICT MRI and mpMRI at one center before undergoing targeted biopsy.

33 Gleason 3+4) was compared between HM-MRI and mpMRI by calculating area under the receiver operating c

34 art of a prospective trial (NCT03368547) and mpMRI before radical prostatectomy were included.

35 ct csPCa was comparable between PSMA PET and mpMRI (sensitivity, 86% vs. 89%; specificity, 76% vs. 74

36 42 men who had undergone (68)Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI before transperineal prostate biopsy were availabl

37 (68)Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI data were centrally collated in a cloud-based deid

38 t-based analysis, [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and mpMRI identified at least 1 intraprostatic lesion in all

39 PET, whereas both [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and mpMRI missed it, reporting a false-positive finding else

40 Methods: [(18)F]flotufolastat PET and mpMRI scans of the prostate were read independently usin

41 ts with histopathology, (68)Ga-PSMA PET, and mpMRI imaging before prostate biopsy were included; 33%

42 (19 low, 18 intermediate, 15 high risk), and mpMRI-assigned risk was a strong predictor of final path

43 f multiparametric transrectal ultrasound and mpMRI is of paramount importance.

44 , and clinical features of mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancers are interrelated.

45 Applying mpMRI thresholds, 12%, 7% and 4% of the cohort had NAFLD

46 results for detection of prostate cancer at mpMRI using PI-RADS v2.

47 PI-RADS 3 or higher lesions at mpMRI and/or LOS 3 or higher lesions at (18)F-PSMA-1007

48 lts and 15.8% (150 of 951) had FN results at mpMRI.

49 in patients with discrepant findings between mpMRI and template biopsies.

50 t prostate cancers are visible on pre-biopsy mpMRI, however, there are a subset of significant tumors

51 ere compared with universal standard biopsy, mpMRI alone with biopsy only for PI-RADSv2 3-5 lesions,

52 bility, exceeding that of PI-RADS applied by mpMRI-experienced radiologists.

53 uPAR PET in primary tumors, as delineated by mpMRI, showed a significant correlation with the Gleason

54 e SUV in the primary tumor, as delineated by mpMRI, was measured by 2 independent readers.

55 ends to detect smaller csPCa not detected by mpMRI.

56 significant tumors that are not detected by mpMRI.

57 A total of 52 lesions were identified by mpMRI (19 low, 18 intermediate, 15 high risk), and mpMRI

58 come was the proportion of cancers missed by mpMRI but detected by PET/CT.

59 cted solely by PSMA PET/CT and overlooked by mpMRI.

60 ariable analysis, csPCa tumors undetected by mpMRI but detected by PSMA PET/CT were smaller than thos

61 f intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer, mpMRI should still be considered the imaging modality of

62 xial T2-weighted images from 120 consecutive mpMRI examinations performed between May 2015 and Februa

63 evelop a risk prediction tool that considers mpMRI findings to assess the risk of 5-year BCR after ra

64 cancer underwent 3-T MRI with a conventional mpMRI protocol and HM-MRI followed by subsequent biopsy

65 tistically significant between PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI and the 2 imaging modalities alone for delineation

66 T/CT (PSMA PET/CT), mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI using 3 independent masked readers for each modali

67 sion of PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI) should be used as it improves tumor extent deline

68 7% for PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI, respectively.

69 ance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT), mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI using 3 independent maske

70 ll patients underwent (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy.

71 ysis) was 85%, 83%, and 87% for PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI, respectively.

72 greement analysis of (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, mpMRI, and RP specimens was performed by dividing the pr

73 For each mpMRI strategy, either no biopsy or standard biopsy coul

74 ] and PSA density) but negative or equivocal mpMRI results or negative biopsy were prospectively enro

75 TTCT: n = 30, 17 days [95% CI, 8 to 25] for mpMRI v n = 28, 14 days [95% CI, 10 to 29] for TURBT, lo

76 95% CI: 65, 89) and 38% (95% CI: 31, 47) for mpMRI (P = .04 and .23, respectively).

77 95% CI: 59, 75) and 51% (95% CI: 43, 59) for mpMRI (P = .65 and .26, respectively); and active survei

78 r (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 91% and 87% for mpMRI, respectively.

79 lastat PET versus 85%, 50%, 40%, and 90% for mpMRI and 95%, 42%, 39%, and 96% for PET/MRI combined.

80 r the detection of csPCa was 95% and 91% for mpMRI and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, respectively, with res

81 lastat PET versus 45%, 88%, 33%, and 92% for mpMRI and 69%, 83%, 35%, and 95% for PET/MRI combined.

82 d poor to moderate reliability was found for mpMRI readers.

83 Specificity was highest for mpMRI with 75% followed by (68)Ga-PSMA11 (67%) and (68)G

84 posed deep transfer learning CADx method for mpMRI may improve diagnostic performance by reducing the

85 or (68)Ga-PSMA11) were higher than those for mpMRI (77% and 77%, respectively).

86 ity that is not significantly different from mpMRI.

87 ality assessments of T2-weighted images from mpMRI examinations (60 performed with glucagon; 60, with

88 nal models can leverage the information from mpMRI to locate the lesions with a high degree of certai

89 s of malignant prostate cancer patients from mpMRI has been studied heavily in the past years.

90 combining central tendency and heterogeneity mpMRI features is promising for non-invasive HCC charact

91 However, mpMRI in the postinterventional setting is often false-n

92 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings of patients with a Gleason score (GS) of

93 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for initial staging.

94 Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become increasingly important for the clinica

95 Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been shown to improve radiologists' performan

96 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has transformed the risk stratification and diagn

97 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in PCa has become widespread.

98 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) including tri-planar T2-weighted (T2W), dynamic c

99 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and to report preliminary data correlating quant

100 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), has emerged in the prebiopsy pathway for the dia

101 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

102 Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI).

103 In mpMRI negative men, the PHI again improved prediction of

104 In mpMRI, these advantages consist of multiple sequences co

105 icial intelligence (AI) models can assist in mpMRI interpretation, but large training data sets and e

106 Incorporating mpMRI ahead of TURBT into the standard pathway was benef

107 t of the PI-RADS v2 algorithm and may inform mpMRI interpretation to improve prostate cancer diagnosi

108 URBT (n = 72; 55 males, 15 MIBCs) or initial mpMRI (n = 71; 53 males, 14 MIBCs).

109 MIBC was significantly shorter with initial mpMRI (n = 12, 53 days [95% CI, 20 to 89] v n = 14, 98 d

110 rs with 1-20 years of experience interpreted mpMRI and HM-MRI examinations independently, with a 4-we

111 cating the value of objectively interpreting mpMRI images using radiomics and classification methods

112 Furthermore, at the histopathological level, mpMRI-visible tumors appear to exhibit increased archite

113 ach that is suitable for analysis of limited mpMRI datasets for the task of differential diagnosis.

114 F-choline PET/CT and multiparametric 3T MRI (mpMRI) of the pelvis were performed in 36 subjects with

115 ation in RCC on standard multiparameter MRI (mpMRI) images.

116 pared with preoperative multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) (n = 36) and (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET (n = 17) and corre

117 patients who underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and (68)Ga-PSMA PET before prostate biopsy for th

118 Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET

119 se by comparing it with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and radical prostatectomy (RP) histopathology.

120 dicine, the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy in helping detect low-volume

121 ities in focal therapy, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and ultrasonography.

122 s compared with that of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) assessed per Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data

123 elp this process, using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data to detect PCa, effectively providing value d

124 System (PI-RADS)-based multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) evaluation by expert radiologists.

125 0% of men with positive multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Sys

126 [(68)Ga]Ga-RM2 PET, and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of primary prostate cancer (PCa

127 ting of lesions seen on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves prostate cancer (PC) detection at biopsy

128 Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves prostate cancer (PCa) detection compared

129 ed PET in comparison to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the evaluation of intraprostatic cancer foci i

130 cancer do not consider multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) information.

131 Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is currently used for tumor delineation.

132 Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is effective for detecting prostate cancer (PCa);

133 Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is validated for the diagnosis of clinically sign

134 Thus, we investigated multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) metrics of liver fat (proton density fat fraction

135 Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has been identified as a test tha

136 ighted image quality at multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate.

137 which quantitative 3-T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) parameters correlate with and help predict the pr

138 erpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) persists despite implementation of the Prostate I

139 tate cancer at prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) using the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data Sys

140 ss of (18)F-choline PET/multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus mpMRI alone for the detection of primary p

141 ination of uPAR PET and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was performed, and the SUV in the primary tumor,

142 te is an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), with lower cost and increased accessibility.

143 f Cr/IDC-pattern PCa at multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in biops

144 8)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

145 vant immunotherapy with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

146 ended with biopsies and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

147 Both multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) have shown pr

148 Multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) is widely used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosi

149 age quality in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI), aimed at improving clinical use and reproducibil

150 Purpose To evaluate VERDICT MRI, mpMRI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and

151 almost perfect agreement across multicenter mpMRI data.

152 ong basic prostate readers using multicenter mpMRI data and compared it to PI-QUAL V1.

153 mining re-biopsy need in men with a negative mpMRI.

154 ard biopsy could be performed after negative mpMRI results were obtained.

155 8 with positive template biopsy and negative mpMRI after HIFU from an ongoing clinical trial (NCT0226

156 P, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of mpMRI were calculated as 94.74%, 100%, and 96.3%, respec

157 ion was missed when using the combination of mpMRI and HM-MRI.

158 Retrospective combination of mpMRI and PET/CT had an accuracy of 81% for total and 93

159 In addition, different combinations of mpMRI findings are used for evaluating the aggressivenes

160 Pertinent considerations of mpMRI in pretreatment patient selection and treatment pl

161 -1007 PET/CT was performed within 30 days of mpMRI and before biopsy.

162 However, heterogeneity in the evidence of mpMRI during AS has suggested that further prospective s

163 ical, radiological, and clinical features of mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancers are i

164 Results The number of mpMRI radiology reports (599 examinations performed with

165 or improving the accuracy and objectivity of mpMRI-based PCa assessment.

166 The performance of mpMRI can vary depending on the population being studied

167 ring high-quality execution and reporting of mpMRI and ensuring that this diagnostic pathway is cost-

168 he diagnosis of prostate cancer, the role of mpMRI in patient selection for AS and the necessity of p

169 econds +/- 43 [SD]) was shorter than that of mpMRI (254 seconds +/- 133; P = .03).

170 95% CI: 0.82, 0.92]) was higher than that of mpMRI (Cronbach alpha = 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.52]; alpha

171 vely, for a PI-RADS score of 2 versus 3-5 on mpMRI.

172 ssifier for PCa risk stratification based on mpMRI-derived radiomic features derived from a sizeable

173 Tumor detection on mpMRI and PSMA PET was compared using PRIMARY and Prosta

174 ion Network (AtPCa-Net) for PCa detection on mpMRI.

175 ver, 20%-65% of highly suspicious lesions on mpMRI (PI-RADS [Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Syst

176 The visibility of these lesions on mpMRI closely correlates with their behavior, with visib

177 localize PCa recurrence after HIFU occult on mpMRI.

178 ls show good performance in detecting PCa on mpMRI, but domain-specific PCa-related anatomical inform

179 l clinically significant cancers not seen on mpMRI in this selective cohort.

180 s had histologically verified PCa visible on mpMRI and constituted the study population.

181 derwent bpMRI-directed (55%, 849 of 1538) or mpMRI-directed (45%, 689 of 1538) prostate biopsy.

182 valuated men who underwent bpMRI-directed or mpMRI-directed transrectal US (TRUS)-guided targeted pro

183 ] and 34% [95% CI: 30, 38], respectively) or mpMRI-directed (56% [95% CI: 52, 61] and 34% [95% CI: 30

184 ere randomly assigned 1:1 to TURBT-staged or mpMRI-staged care, with minimization factors of sex, age

185 [(18)F]flotufolastat PET, which outperformed mpMRI (read using PI-RADS) for the detection of histopat

186 prediction of Gleason >/= 3 + 4 cancers over mpMRI alone (area under the curve = 0.92; P < 0.001).

187 ion detection was rated superior on PET over mpMRI for 12 lesions, whereas mpMRI was superior for 1 l

188 has improved negative predictive value over mpMRI alone for csPCa.

189 ection accuracy of [(18)F]flotufolastat PET, mpMRI, and combined PET/MRI.

190 of Likert scoring, hybrid (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI cost $46,867/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone.

191 d economic consequences of (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with

192 Conclusion: (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with

193 ltiple simultaneous hybrid (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI strategies were evaluated using Likert or Prostate

194 sults: When the results of (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI were negative, performing a standard biopsy was mo

195 his study performed hybrid (18)F-choline PET/mpMRI with Likert scoring on men with elevated PSA, perf

196 when the sensitivity and specificity of PET/mpMRI and combined biopsy (targeted biopsy and standard

197 At a threshold of >/=35, PHI + mpMRI demonstrated a NPV of 0.97 for excluding significa

198 could improve the stratification of positive mpMRI findings.

199 019 who underwent pre- and postimmunotherapy mpMRI before radical cystectomy.

200 ate at 48 to 72 h, followed by postprocedure mpMRI/ultrasound targeted fusion biopsies at 3 and 12 mo

201 Prostate mpMRI examinations were interpreted by 13 radiologists.

202 c antigen (PSA) levels referred for prostate mpMRI between September 2020 and February 2022.

203 Six radiologists experienced in prostate mpMRI read images as per the Prostate Imaging-Reporting

204 consecutive patients who underwent prostate mpMRI examinations containing zero or one PI-RADS v2 cat

205 suspected PCa, no prior biopsy, and a recent mpMRI examination (6 mo) and for whom prostate biopsy wa

206 ts selected based on an expert radiologist's mpMRI interpretation (>=PI-RADS 3) using an MRI/US fusio

207 Lesions at WMHP were matched to 3-T mpMRI lesions with American College of Radiology Prostat

208 Conclusion Quantitative 3-T mpMRI parameters significantly correlated with and helpe

209 ions who underwent preoperative prostate 3-T mpMRI, radical prostatectomy, and WMHP between January 2

210 f tumor recurrence and medium- and long-term mpMRI surveillance of the post-focal therapy prostate, a

211 and specificity (36% vs 14%: P = .002) than mpMRI.

212 icantly higher specificity and accuracy than mpMRI and a performance similar to (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET.

213 performance of HM-MRI was either higher than mpMRI or showed no evidence of a difference when compare

214 showed significantly better performance than mpMRI for all metrics, including primary end points of t

215 patient-level (98% vs. 94%) sensitivity than mpMRI.

216 While current evidence suggests that mpMRI cannot replace the need for prostate biopsy during

217 Emerging evidence suggests that mpMRI-visible tumors are enriched with molecular feature

218 The mpMRI examinations of 426 patients revealed a total of 3

219 The mpMRI was read separately using the Prostate Imaging Rep

220 The mpMRI were scored according to the PIRADS v2.1 guideline

221 The mpMRI-directed pathway led to a 45-day reduction in TTCT

222 thological appearances, elucidating both the mpMRI visibility and clinical status of significant pros

223 etermine the frequency of IF detected in the mpMRI examination according to organ distribution and cl

224 ies available for assessment) and 227 in the mpMRI-targeted biopsy arm (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60

225 the systematic biopsy arm compared with the mpMRI arm (31 of 196 biopsies [16%] vs 33 of 132 biopsie

226 Radiologists interpreting post-focal therapy mpMRI must be familiar with expected posttreatment chang

227 Post-focal therapy mpMRI surveillance is critical for assessing oncologic e

228 own promising early results as an adjunct to mpMRI in initial diagnosis.

229 o was used, the addition of (18)F-choline to mpMRI significantly improved the prediction of Gleason >

230 r prediction (AUC 0.71 and 0.75) compared to mpMRI + PSA alone (AUC 0.64 and 0.69 respectively).

231 chitectural and vascular density compared to mpMRI-invisible disease.

232 number of unneeded biopsies in comparison to mpMRI alone.

233 e number of biopsies by 35% in comparison to mpMRI alone.

234 The addition of (18)F-choline PET to mpMRI improves the identification of significant prostat

235 In this study adding PHI to mpMRI improved overall and significant cancer prediction

236 ing results ($22,706/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone); this strategy reduced the number of biopsi

237 T/mpMRI cost $46,867/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone.

238 PHI was assessed for ability to add value to mpMRI in predicting all or only significant cancers (Gle

239 Patients unable/unwilling to undergo mpMRI or with previous BC were ineligible.

240 The radiobiological mechanisms underpinning mpMRI-visibility and invisibility of these cancers remai

241 S biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer underwent mpMRI (triplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dy

242 o HCC patients with 39 HCC lesions underwent mpMRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), blood-

243 In total, 291 men underwent mpMRI, (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and systematic biopsy with or

244 ) participants with suspected MIBC underwent mpMRI.

245 Nine patients underwent mpMRI in the process of primary diagnosis.

246 The patients underwent mpMRI on a 3T MRI scanner followed by surgery within 2 w

247 patients with prostate cancer who underwent mpMRI before radical prostatectomy, the outcome of inter

248 ents who had a GS of 3 + 3 and who underwent mpMRI were evaluated retrospectively.

249 ts with suspected or known PCa who underwent mpMRI, US-guided systematic biopsy, or combined systemat

250 methodology to diagnose breast cancer using mpMRI.

251 cularly cT1, proposes the potential of using mpMRI for routine pediatric NAFLD screening of high-risk

252 nd interpretation time of radiologists using mpMRI versus HM-MRI to diagnose clinically significant p

253 MARY score (0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]) versus mpMRI/PI-RADS score (0.75 [95% CI, 0.62-0.87) and combin

254 was the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT versus mpMRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alo

255 oline PET/multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus mpMRI alone for the detection of primary prostate cancer

256 MRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alone.

257 ons between imaging techniques (PSMA PET vs. mpMRI).

258 or on PET over mpMRI for 12 lesions, whereas mpMRI was superior for 1 lesion.

259 tional biomarkers are considered and whether mpMRI-targeted biopsy is carried out alone or in additio

260 11 PET/CT ((68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT) combined with mpMRI has improved negative predictive value over mpMRI

261 higher for HM-MRI for reader 4 compared with mpMRI (AUCs for readers 1-4: 0.61, 0.71, 0.59, and 0.64

262 her for HM-MRI for readers 2-4 compared with mpMRI (specificity for readers 1-4: 48%, 78%, 48%, and 4

263 value (PPV) of bpMRI-directed compared with mpMRI-directed targeted biopsy are lacking in the litera

264 e value (31% vs 22%; P = .004) compared with mpMRI.

265 evidence of a difference when compared with mpMRI.

266 cy of PET/CT versus mpMRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alone.

267 w, the authors present their experience with mpMRI before and after focal therapy.

268 ts underwent [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI with mpMRI, and 36 had additional imaging with [(68)Ga]Ga-RM2

269 cantly greater sensitivity and NPV than with mpMRI alone.

270 ecurrences is unclear, both with and without mpMRI.