Latest Videos Archives

Prostate Imaging Elevated By Deep Learning

Posted by Mukesh Harisinghani, MD | Mar 2022

Mukesh Harisinghani, MD, Director of Abdominal MRI at Massachusetts General Hospital and Professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, discusses how deep learning algorithms can improve the efficiency and accuracy of prostate cancer imaging. He highlights the importance of widespread prostate cancer screening, observing that every 3 minutes, a man is diagnosed with prostate cancer, and every 17 minutes, a man dies of prostate cancer. Dr. Harisinghani notes that patients want to get a multiparametric (mp)MRI if there is a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer and, if negative, avoid a biopsy in order to prevent unnecessary intervention and avoid cost. Because this is such a widespread need and mpMRIs are relatively time-consuming, he argues there is a need to figure out how to reduce scan time and not lose accuracy. Dr. Harisinghani explains that the two main time sinks in prostate mpMRI are T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). He then demonstrates how deep learning reconstruction using software like AIR Recon DL in all 3 planes leads to significant time gain for T2-weighted imaging. Dr. Harisinghani says that many might be hesitant to ‘skimp’ on DWI, since higher b value (which takes a longer time to attain) leads to better image quality. However, he argues that deep learning can reduce scan time without reducing scan quality in DWI, and presents images comparing standard DWI and Air Recon DL to show the improved quality of the latter. Dr. Harisinghani concludes that a scan time of less than 10 minutes is not necessarily just a dream if you can apply Air Recon DL to both T2 and DWI.

Innovations in Urologic Residency Education

Posted by Wesley A. Mayer, MD | Mar 2022

Wesley A. Mayer, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Assistant Dean of Graduate Education, and Vice Chair of Education in the Scott Department of Urology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, discusses innovations in urologic residency education in the face of changing technology and COVID-19. He begins with a brief history of medical training, explaining that the apprenticeship model was standard until around the start of the 20th century, when William Halstead began to develop the traditional surgical education experience featuring intense and repetitive experiences with surgical patients. Dr. Mayer then lists new challenges in modern surgical training, including work-hour restrictions, influence from other high-stakes fields, an increasingly litigious environment, rising expectations from the public, a progressive physician shortfall, and generational changes in learning style and needs. He argues that to meet these challenges, modern surgical training should: leverage simulators as well as inanimate and animate models; deconstruct complex surgeries into component skills; incorporate structured objective assessment tools; utilize concise, constructive, real-time feedback; address broader stressors impacting trainees, such as wellness and burnout; develop non-surgical skills; and innovate through servant leadership. Dr. Mayer then discusses recent innovations in open surgical training, highlighting the benefits of using cost-effective models based on cheaper materials and 3D printing rather than expensive traditional benchtop models and cadaveric simulations. He moves on to look at innovations in endoscopic surgical training and innovations in laparoscopic/robotic surgical training, emphasizing the benefits of virtual reality training models and video-based coaching. Dr. Mayer summarizes the recent experience of resident education in the Scott Department, particularly focusing on the department’s participation in a trial of SIMPL, a smartphone-based surgical skills assessment tool. He then briefly expands upon innovative feedback models and ways to manage trainee wellness and burnout. Dr. Mayer also considers the effect of COVID-19 on surgical training, observing that while the pandemic led to reduced resident work hours and increased concern that residents would not be able to meet minimum case requirements, the rise of videoconferencing allowed for the positive development of nationwide urology didactics. He closes the presentation by discussing innovative educational uses of social media and the importance of non-technical skills training.

Mini PCNL versus Standard PCNL

Posted by Manoj J. Monga, MD, FACS | Mar 2022

Manoj J. Monga, MD, FACS, Professor and Chair of Urology at the University of California, San Diego, compares mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini PCNL) for renal stone removal to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). He begins by looking at who needs a PCNL, explaining that he typically performs them on patients with a stone larger than 15mm, but that he also sometimes performs PCNL on stones when there are anatomical considerations that would make it difficult to get to the stone ureteroscopically. Dr. Monga notes that PCNL has the best outcomes and results in the best quality of life of any stone removal technique. He then poses the question: Why not treat every stone with PCNL? The answer, of course, he says, is because 4/1000 patients die from PCNL due to sepsis. Dr. Monga then moves on to discuss mini PCNL, noting that it was originally assumed to potentially be safer than PCNL, but that a 2001 study showed there was no advantage. He also observes that the smaller sheath used in mini PCNL actually increases the risk of infectious complications, and that outcomes are worse and operating room time is longer with mini PCNL compared to standard. However, Dr. Monga notes, there does appear to be a lower risk for bleeding and fewer transfusions, which might result in less kidney volume loss.

Current and Emerging Role of Radiogenomics in Risk Assessment for Focal Therapy

Posted by John Feller, MD | Mar 2022

John F. Feller, MD, Founding Partner of Desert Medical Imaging, Chief Medical Officer for HALO Diagnostics, Assistant Clinical Professor in the Departments of Radiology at Loma Linda University and at Riverside School of Medicine, and Chief of Radiology and Partner of the American Medical Center in China, discusses the emerging role of radiogenomics in prostate cancer in the context of risk stratification for focal therapy. He explains that he and his colleagues at HALO Diagnostics are interested in finding “Whack-a-Mole” patients whose cancer tends to recur in a way that makes them difficult to manage with focal therapy. Dr. Feller asks whether risk stratification for focal therapy can be done using radiogenomics and whether responders to focal therapy for prostate cancer can prospectively be distinguished from non-responders using biomarkers. He defines responders as those with a negative MR guided biopsy of the treatment site(s) 6 months following focal therapy who do not develop in-field or out-of-field clinically significant recurrences over time. Dr. Feller then lists the biomarkers and other criteria used in risk stratification with radiogenomics, including age, initial serum PSA, initial PSA density, mpMRI, index lesion mpMRI volume, index lesion quantitative ADC, systematic biopsy, Gleason score, tissue-based genomics, liquid biopsy, molecular imaging. He goes into depth about results from the tissue-based genomics PTEN and ERG (ProstaVysion), Decipher for biopsy (Decipher Score), and Decipher GRID. He also further explores liquid biopsy options, including urine (ExoDx) and blood (Biocept). Dr. Feller concludes: that mpMRI followed by genomics and other biomarkers show promise for risk stratification for focal therapy of prostate cancer; that a biomarker ensemble approach to prostate cancer helps mitigate the blind spots of individual biomarkers, as well as the heterogeneity of the disease; that research of radiogenomics in the setting of focal therapy for prostate cancer may help develop novel combination therapies such as focal therapy combined with checkpoint inhibitors; and that multiple biomarker complex data sources present an artificial intelligence/machine learning opportunity.

Bladder-Sparing Trimodality Therapy

Posted by Daniel A. Hamstra, MD, PhD, FASTRO, FASCO | Mar 2022

Daniel A. Hamstra, MD, PhD, Chairman and Professor of Radiation Oncology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, discusses bladder-sparing trimodality therapy for patients with bladder cancer, explaining the role of each aspect of care, outcomes in terms of quality of life, and the potential future role of checkpoint inhibitors. He begins by noting that successful organ preservation approaches in oncology are common (e.g., in breast cancer, head and neck cancer, and extremity sarcoma) and can reasonably be applied to bladder cancer as well. Dr. Hamstra then introduces the standard care pathway for trimodality bladder preservation, from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to radiotherapy with radiosensitizing agent, to follow-up with repeat cystoscopy. He goes into detail about the role of each portion of treatment, arguing that surgical management, concurrent chemotherapy, and radiation therapy are all critical to treatment success. Dr. Hamstra also discusses how radiation should be delivered in terms of effectiveness and toxicity and considers the question of whether to treat the bladder only or the pelvis and bladder with radiation. He then looks at patient-reported quality of life after bladder preservation, highlighting that while many patients report declines in bladder-related quality of life immediately following chemoradiotherapy, they generally improve to baseline after 6 months, and ⅔ of patients report stable or improved quality of life on long-term follow-up. Finally, Dr. Hamstra touches on future additions to bladder-sparing treatment such as checkpoint inhibitors, highlighting the ongoing INTACT trial of concurrent chemoradiation with or without atezolizumab for localized muscle invasive bladder cancer. He concludes that trimodality bladder preservation represents a viable but underutilized option for T2-T4 bladder cancer that requires coordinated care between urology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. Dr. Hamstra reiterates that each component of treatment is critical, quality of life outcomes are excellent, and newer agents may also improve outcomes.