Accuracy of cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy in hitting prostate cancer-positive regions of interest.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis relies on clinical suspicion leading to systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allows for targeted biopsy of suspicious areas of the prostate instead of random 12-core biopsy. This method has been shown to be more accurate in detecting significant PCa. However, the precise spatial accuracy of cognitive targeting is unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing mpMRI-targeted TRUSGB with cognitive registration (MRTB-COG) followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were included in the present analysis. The regions of interest (ROIs) involved by the index lesion reported on mpMRI were subsequently targeted by two experienced urologists using the cognitive approach. The 27 ROIs were used as spatial reference. Mapping on radical prostatectomy specimen was used as reference to determine true-positive mpMRI findings. Per core correlation analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty patients were included. Overall, 40 index lesions involving 137 ROIs (mean ROIs per index lesion 3.43) were identified on MRI. After correlating these findings with final pathology, 117 ROIs (85 %) were considered as true-positive lesions. A total of 102 biopsy cores directed toward such true-positive ROIs were available for final analysis. Cognitive targeted biopsy hit the target in 82 % of the cases (84/102). The only identified risk factor for missing the target was an anterior situated ROI (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, cognitive MRTB-COG allows for an accuracy of 82 % in hitting the correct target, given that it is a true-positive lesion. Anterior tumors are less likely to be successfully targeted.

The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability revisited through four Swiss cases

Accountability and transparency are of growing importance in contemporary governance. The academic literature have broadly studied the two concepts separately, defining and redefining them, and including them into various framework, sometimes mistakenly using them as synonyms. The relationship between the two concepts has, curiously, only been studied by a few scholars with preliminary approaches. This theoretical paper will focus on both concepts, trying first to describe them taking into account the various evolutions in the literature and the recent evolutions as well as the first attempts to link the two concepts. In order to show a new approach linking the concepts, four cases from the Swiss context will be portrayed and will demonstrate the necessity to reconsider the relationship between transparency and accountability. Consequently, a new framework, based on Fox's framework (2007) will be presented and theoretically delimited.

Image guided critical screw placement precision in the cervical spine : important or incidental? : results of a series of 91 consecutive cases using OVEM

Study design: A retrospective study of image guided cervical implant placement precision. Objective: To describe a simple and precise classification of cervical critical screw placement. Summary of Background Data: "Critical" screw placement is defined as implant insertion into a bone corridor which is surrounded circumferentially by neurovascular structures. While the use of image guidance has improved accuracy, there is currently no classification which provides sufficient precision to assess the navigation success of critical cervical screw placement. Methods: Based on postoperative clinical evaluation and CT imaging, the orthogonal view evaluation method (OVEM) is used to classify screw accuracy into grade I (no cortical breach), grade la (screw thread cortical breach), grade II (internal diameter cortical breach) and grade III (major cortical breach causing neural or vascular injury). Grades II and III are considered to be navigation failures, after accounting for bone corridor / screw mismatch (minimal diameter of targeted bone corridor being smaller than an outer screw diameter). Results: A total of 276 screws from 91 patients were classified into grade I (64.9%), grade la (18.1%), and grade II (17.0%). No grade III screw was observed. The overall rate of navigation failure was 13%. Multiple logistic regression indicated that navigational failure was significantly associated with the level of instrumentation and the navigation system used. Navigational failure was rare (1.6%) when the margin around the screw in the bone corridor was larger than 1.5 mm. Conclusions: OVEM evaluation appears to be a useful tool to assess the precision of critical screw placement in the cervical spine. The OVEM validity and reliability need to be addressed. Further correlation with clinical outcomes will be addressed in future studies.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections. METHODS: 20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines. RESULTS: Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.