On 2014 Nov 14, Curtis Corum commented:

Stephen,

Interesting comment...

I am not as familiar with standard imaging reporting for PC. For PC it is the various Gleeson scores that are of final interest, but structured imaging reporting is not necessarily as far along as in breast?

In Breast the BI-RADS reporting is standard, and now includes qualitative/semi-quatnitative DCE and morphological MRI. Efforts to process emerging modalities such as quantitative DCE and DWI/ADC are still research topics... for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23504036 as far as I can tell.

For treatment monitoring in breast (and many others icluding PC?) there are the various RECIST etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18316345 that are continuously being updated as volumetric and other information becomes more readily available.

will review more...

On 2014 Aug 27, Stephen Strum commented:

My comment is limited by obviously not having read the full text of the article. What I have found in reviewing data on Multi-Parametric MRI (MPM) in PC (prostate cancer) is a lack of objective reporting, aka "structured" reporting. Therefore, I wonder if BC (breast cancer) reporting is similar.

What is needed is consensus on reporting the important objective data e.g., for DWI, indicating the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) and b values; for DCE, reporting Ktrans (transfer constant min-1) or signal intensity-time curves (SITCs), and of course dimensional measurements for T2WI (T2 weighted images).

Such an attempt at a structured report would not only be of great value to clinicians for evaluating initial response to neoadjuvant therapy but also for ongoing responses to any form of treatment.

On 2014 Aug 27, Stephen Strum commented:

My comment is limited by obviously not having read the full text of the article. What I have found in reviewing data on Multi-Parametric MRI (MPM) in PC (prostate cancer) is a lack of objective reporting, aka "structured" reporting. Therefore, I wonder if BC (breast cancer) reporting is similar.

What is needed is consensus on reporting the important objective data e.g., for DWI, indicating the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) and b values; for DCE, reporting Ktrans (transfer constant min-1) or signal intensity-time curves (SITCs), and of course dimensional measurements for T2WI (T2 weighted images).

Such an attempt at a structured report would not only be of great value to clinicians for evaluating initial response to neoadjuvant therapy but also for ongoing responses to any form of treatment.

On 2014 Nov 14, Curtis Corum commented:

Stephen,

Interesting comment...

I am not as familiar with standard imaging reporting for PC. For PC it is the various Gleeson scores that are of final interest, but structured imaging reporting is not necessarily as far along as in breast?

In Breast the BI-RADS reporting is standard, and now includes qualitative/semi-quatnitative DCE and morphological MRI. Efforts to process emerging modalities such as quantitative DCE and DWI/ADC are still research topics... for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23504036 as far as I can tell.

For treatment monitoring in breast (and many others icluding PC?) there are the various RECIST etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18316345 that are continuously being updated as volumetric and other information becomes more readily available.

will review more...