Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Imaging
- •Personal Preference
- •Introduction
- •Traditional Radical Therapies
- •Active Surveillance
- •Why Consider Focal Therapy?
- •Cancer Treatment Needs
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •Focal Therapy Candidates
- •The Index Lesion Theory
- •Further Prospective
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Renal Mass Biopsy
- •Approach
- •Cryoablation
- •Treatment Temperature
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Treatment Temperature
- •Intraoperative Monitoring
- •Cryoablation
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Recommended Imaging Follow-Up Protocol
- •Emerging New Ablative Modalities
- •Microwave Ablation
- •Irreversible Electroporation
- •Radiation Therapy
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Local Recurrence-Free Survival
- •Overall Survival
- •Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Complications
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Informed Consent
- •Why Focal Therapy?
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Prostate MRI
- •Robotic Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Decipher
- •Oncotype DX
- •Prolaris
- •Limitations
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Androgen Manipulation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Genomic Biomarkers
- •Genomic Heterogeneity
- •Targeted Biopsy Outcomes
- •Outcomes After Active Surveillance
- •Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Early Prostate MRI Consensus Meetings
- •PI-RADS v2
- •PI-RADS v2.1
- •PI-RADS Vs. Likert Score
- •MRI-Targeted Biopsies
- •Reporting Cancer Recurrence
- •MRI After Focal Therapy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •MR Segmentation
- •US Segmentation
- •MR-US Registration/Fusion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ultrasound Elastography
- •Strain Elastography
- •Shear Wave Elastography
- •Patient Factors During FB
- •Discussion
- •Learning Curve
- •Core Number Optimization
- •Transrectal Versus Transperineal
- •Future Directions
- •Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) Imaging
- •Quantitative Ultrasound
- •Micro-Ultrasound
- •Multiparametric Ultrasound
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cognitive Fusion
- •In-Bore MRI-Guided Biopsy
- •Software-Based Image Coregistration
- •Registration Algorithms
- •Biopsy Needle Tracking
- •Biopsy Approach
- •Commercial Systems
- •Electromagnetic Tracking
- •Mechanical Position Encoders
- •Image-Based Tracking
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Complications
- •Urinary Retention
- •Bleeding
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Institutional Examples
- •Setting
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •PET-Guided Targeted Prostate Biopsy
- •Gallium-68 (68Ga)-Radiolabeled PSMA Ligands
- •Fluorine-18 (18F)-Radiolabeled PSMA Ligands
- •Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor (GRPR)
- •Future Outlook
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Approach
- •Sampling
- •Core Length
- •Histologic Submission
- •BxChip™
- •Reporting Results
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Location: Treatment Factors
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Focal Therapy Nomenclature
- •Nerve-Sparing (Unilateral or Bilateral)
- •Hemi-Ablation
- •Anterior Hockey-Stick Ablation (Anterior Three-Fourth)
- •Posterior Hockey-Stick Ablation (Posterior Three-Fourth)
- •Targeted Focal Therapy
- •Quadrant (Zonal) Ablation
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cryotherapy
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA)
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Surgery (Partial Prostatectomy)
- •Evolving Frontiers
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Procedure Selection
- •Patients’ Selection
- •Anesthesia
- •Perioperative Protocols
- •Procedure
- •Postoperative Period
- •Outcomes
- •Procedure Feasibility
- •Adverse Events
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Clinical Background
- •Radiotherapy Techniques
- •Clinical Evidence About High-Dose Rate Interventional Radiotherapy (HDR IRT)
- •Clinical Evidence About Low-Dose Rate Interventional Radiotherapy (LDR IRT)
- •Clinical Evidence About Focal External Beam Radiotherapy (ERT)
- •Discussion
- •References
- •28: Focal Cryotherapy
- •Introduction
- •Focal Cryotherapy Procedure
- •Contemporary Focal Cryotherapy Series
- •Primary Focal Cryoablation
- •Salvage Focal Cryotherapy
- •Surveillance
- •Future Developments
- •Imaging
- •Cryotechnology
- •Immune Enhancer
- •References
- •Background
- •Energy Principles: Basic Science
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Early Studies
- •Phase 1 Clinical Trial (“Subtotal” Ablation)
- •Phase II (“TACT”) Clinical Trial (“Whole Gland” Ablation)
- •Patient Selection
- •Preoperative Imaging Planning
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Follow-Up Routine Post-Focal TULSA
- •Summary
- •References
- •Vapor 1 Study Results
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Robotic HIFU
- •Safety Features
- •Robotic HIFU Procedure
- •Intraoperative Monitoring
- •Built-in Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound
- •Postoperative Care
- •Follow-up
- •Oncologic Outcomes
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Preprocedure Workup
- •Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Complications
- •Controversies
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Posttreatment MRI Findings
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Focal Laser Ablation (FLA)
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Focal Cryotherapy (FC)
- •Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
- •Future Perspectives
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Biochemical Recurrence
- •Functional Outcomes
- •Perioperative Complications
- •Urinary
- •Sexual
- •Bowel
- •Decision Regret
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •36: Assessing Functional Outcomes After Focal Therapy
- •High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)
- •Cryotherapy
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Focal Brachytherapy
- •Focal Laser Ablation (FLA)
- •Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
- •Microwave Ablation
- •Partial Prostatectomy
- •Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation (bRFA)
- •Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE)
- •Urinary Function
- •IPSS
- •EPIC
- •ICIQ-SF
- •Erectile Function
- •IIEF
- •EPIC
- •Safety Outcomes
- •Clavien-Dindo
- •CTCAE
- •Physical/Mental Outcomes
- •SF-12
- •Monitoring Patients After Focal Therapy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •PSA Nadir
- •PSA Density
- •Other Molecular Biomarkers
- •Follow-Up Protocols After FT
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Postbrachytherapy Treatment Changes
- •Post High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Treatment Changes
- •Post Cryotherapy Treatment Changes
- •Post Laser Ablation Changes
- •Post Photodynamic Therapy Changes
- •Post Irreversible Electroporation Changes
- •Interstitial Microwave Thermal Therapy
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •References
- •39: Salvage Treatment Following Focal Therapy
- •Introduction
- •Salvage Treatment Modalities
- •Repeat Ablation
- •Salvage Radical Treatment
- •Salvage Radical Prostatectomy
- •Salvage Radiotherapy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ensuring Appropriate Quality
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Patient Selection
- •Posttreatment Follow-Up
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Index

14 A History of Reporting Standards for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: PI-RADS, PRECISE…
151
26. Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM,
Kasivisvanathan V, group Ps. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system
for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of
the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol
Oncol. 2020;3(5):615–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
euo.2020.06.007.
27. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, etal. Magnetic
resonance imaging for the detection, localisation,
and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur
Urol. 2011;59(4):477–94.
28. Kirkham A, Haslam P, Keanie J, etal. Prostate MRI:
who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus
meeting. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(10):1016–23.
29. Desai S, Costa DN. PI-RADS and Likert
scales for structured reporting in multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Br J Radiol.
2022;95(1131):20210758.
30. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al.
Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR
imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before
prostatectomy—results of ACRIN prospective multi- institutional clinicopathologic study.
Radiology. 2009;251(1):122–33.
31. Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO, De Visschere
PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck
W. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and
spectroscopy in the assessment of high grade prostate carcinoma in patients with elevated PSA: a
single-institution experience of 356 patients. Eur J
Radiol. 2011;77(2):340–5.
32. Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, etal. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic
resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic
resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol
Assess. 2013;17:vii–xix.
33. Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, etal. Combined
magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):575–91.
34. Seo JW, Shin S-J, Taik OY, et al. PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically signicant cancer in
patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.
Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):W1–9.
35. Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih J, Mertan F,
Gaur S, Merino M.Prospective evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2
using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol.
2017;198(3):583–90.
36. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, etal. Validation of the
dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic
contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2.
Radiology. 2017;285(3):859–69.
37. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim
SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging
reporting and data system version 2 for detection of
prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic
meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):177–88.
38. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream
JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2
decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection.
Radiology. 2017;283(1):119–29.
39. Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, Mostardeiro
TR, Herts BR, Klein EA.Accuracy and interobserver
agreement for prostate imaging reporting and data
system, version 2, for the characterization of lesions
identied on multiparametric MRI of the prostate.
Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(2):339–49.
40. Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, etal. Accuracy
and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson
Imaging. 2017;45(2):579–85.
41. Barrett T, Rajesh A, Rosenkrantz AB, Choyke PL,
Turkbey B.PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for
prostate MRI.Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):841–52.
42. Ullrich T, Schimmöller L. Perspective: a critical assessment of PI-RADS 2.1. Abdom Radiol.
2020;45:3961–8.
43. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, etal. PI-RADS
version 2.1: a critical review, from the AJR special
series on radiology reporting and data systems. Am J
Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):20–32.
44. Gupta RT, Mehta KA, Turkbey B, Verma
S.PI-RADS: past, present, and future. J Magn Reson
Imaging. 2020;52(1):33–53.
45. Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al.
PI-RADS Committee position on MRI without
contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: narrative review. AJR
Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):3–19. https://doi.
org/10.2214/AJR.20.24268.
46. NICE guideline for Prostate cancer: diagnosis and
management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/
ng131/chapter/Recommendations#localised- andlocally- advanced- prostate- cancer. Accessed 20 Feb
2023.
47. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, etal. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging:
comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data
system (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology.
2013;269(2):482–92.
48. Walker SM, Mehralivand S, Harmon SA, et al.
Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS version 2.1 for
prostate cancer detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2020;215:1.
49. Shin T, Smyth TB, Ukimura O, et al. Diagnostic
accuracy of a ve-point Likert scoring system
for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluated
according to results of MRI/ultrasonography imagefusion targeted biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int.
2018;121(1):77–83.

152
C. Englman et al.
50. Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, etal. Likert
vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological
scoring systems for detection of clinically signicant
prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020;125(1):49–55.
51. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al. The
learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: selfdirected learning versus continual reader feedback.
Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W92–W100.
52. Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Pantelidou M, etal. Comparison
of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically signicant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2020;93(1112):20200298.
53. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg
MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS.Comparison of interreader
reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting
and data system and likert scales for evaluation of
multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol.
2013;201(4):W612–8.
54. Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, etal. Prostate
imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation
study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology.
2015;275(2):458–68.
55. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic
resonance imaging in active surveillance of
prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol.
2015;67(4):627–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eururo.2014.10.050.
56. Caglic I, Sushentsev N, Gnanapragasam VJ, et al.
MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting
pathologically-conrmed radiological progression
in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.
Eur Radiol. 2021;31(5):2696–705. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00330- 020- 07336- 0.
57. Dieffenbacher S, Nyarangi-Dix J, Giganti F, et al.
Standardized magnetic resonance imaging reporting using the prostate cancer radiological estimation of change in sequential evaluation criteria
and magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion with Transperineal saturation biopsy
to select men on active surveillance. Eur Urol
Focus. 2021;7(1):102–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
euf.2019.03.001.
58. Giganti F, Stabile A, Stavrinides V, etal. Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratication by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations
in a UK cohort. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(3):1644–55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330- 020- 07256- z.
59. O'Connor LP, Lebastchi AH, Horuz R, etal. Role
of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management
of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2021;39(3):651–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345- 020- 03310- z.
60. Osses DF, Drost FH, Verbeek JFM, et al. Prostate
cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active
surveillance: are conrmatory biopsies still necessary? BJU Int. 2020;126(1):124–32. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bju.15065.
61. Ullrich T, Arsov C, Quentin M, etal. Multiparametric
magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate
cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study. Eur Radiol.
2020;30(11):6042–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00330- 020- 06997- 1.
62. Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, et al. Reliability of
serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect
prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur
Urol. 2021;80(5):549–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eururo.2021.05.001.
63. Giganti F, Pecoraro M, Stavrinides V, et al.
Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance:
results from a two-Centre pilot study. Eur Radiol.
2020;30(4):2082–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00330- 019- 06557- 2.
64. Harder FN, Heming CA, Haider MA. mpMRI interpretation in active surveillance for prostate cancer—
an overview of the PRECISE score. Abdom Radiol.
2023;48:1–7.
65. Sanmugalingam N, Sushentsev N, Lee K-L, etal.
The PRECISE recommendations for prostate MRI
in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer:
a critical review. Am J Roentgenol. 2023;221:649.
66. Moore CM, King LE, Withington J, et al. Best
current practice and research priorities in active
surveillance for prostate cancer-a report of a
Movember international consensus meeting. Eur
Urol Oncol. 2023;6:160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
euo.2023.01.003.
67. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI.Extent of extraprostatic extension independently inuences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further
pT3 subclassication. Urology. 2015;85(1):161–4.
68. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizovt G, Walsh
PC. Inuence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study
of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol.
1993;150(1):135–41.
69. Sung M-T, Lin H, Koch MO, Davidson DD, Cheng
L.Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate-specic antigen recurrence: a new
proposal for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer.
Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(2):311–8.
70. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil Ö, Kattan MW, et al.
Clinical and pathological signicance of the level
and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1–2
prostate cancer. Hum Pathol. 1998;29(8):856–62.
71. Choyke PL. A grading system for extraprostatic
extension of prostate cancer that we can all agree
upon? Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2020;2(1):e190088.
72. Reisæter LA, Halvorsen OJ, Beisland C, et al.
Assessing extraprostatic extension with multiparametric MRI of the prostate: Mehralivand
extraprostatic extension grade or extraprostatic
extension Likert scale? Radiol Imaging Cancer.
2020;2(1):e190071.
73. Ponsiglione A, Stanzione A, Califano G, etal. MR
image quality inlocal staging of prostate cancer: role

14 A History of Reporting Standards for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: PI-RADS, PRECISE…
153
of PI-QUAL in the detection of extraprostatic extension. Eur J Radiol. 2023;166:110973.
74. Costa DN, Passoni NM, Leyendecker JR, et al.
Diagnostic utility of a Likert scale versus qualitative descriptors and length of capsular contact
for determining extraprostatic tumor extension at
multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol.
2018;210(5):1066–72.
75. Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, et al.
METastasis reporting and data system for prostate
cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic
resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan
involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol.
2017;71(1):81–92.
76. de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, etal. ESUR/ESUI
consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for
the detection of clinically signicant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition,
interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol.
2020;30(10):5404–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00330- 020- 06929- z.
77. Barrett T, de Rooij M, Giganti F, Allen C, Barentsz
JO, Padhani AR.Quality checkpoints in the MRIdirected prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat
Rev Urol. 2023;20(1):9–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41585- 022- 00648- 4.
78. Woernle A, Englman C, Dickinson L, etal. Picture
perfect: the status of image quality in prostate
MRI.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;59:1930. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jmri.29025.
79. Giganti F, Allen C. Imaging quality and prostate MR: it is time to improve. Br J Radiol.
2021;94(1118):20200934.
80. Wollin DA, Makarov DV.Guideline of guidelines:
imaging of localized prostate cancer. BJU Int.
2015;116(4):526.
81. Brembilla G, Lavalle S, Parry T, et al. Impact of
prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) score on the
detection of clinically signicant prostate cancer at
biopsy. Eur J Radiol. 2023;164:110849.
82. Karanasios E, Caglic I, Zawaideh JP, Barrett
T. Prostate MRI quality: clinical impact of the
PI-QUAL score in prostate cancer diagnostic work up. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1133):20211372. https://
doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211372.
83. Tamada T, Ream JM, Doshi AM, Taneja SS,
Rosenkrantz AB.Reduced eld-of-view diffusionweighted magnetic resonance imaging of the
prostate at 3 tesla: comparison with standard
echo-planar imaging technique for image quality
and tumor assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr.
2017;41(6):949–56.
84. Arnoldner MA, Polanec SH, Lazar M, etal. Rectal
preparation signicantly improves prostate imaging quality: assessment of the PI-QUAL score
with visual grading characteristics. Eur J Radiol.
2022;147:110145.
85. Potsch N, Rainer E, Clauser P, et al. Impact of
PI-QUAL on PI-RADS and cancer yield in an
MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy population. Eur J
Radiol. 2022;154:110431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejrad.2022.110431.
86. Hotker AM, Njoh S, Hofer LJ, etal. Multi-reader
evaluation of different image quality scoring systems
in prostate MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2023;161:110733.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110733.
87. Girometti R, Blandino A, Zichichi C, etal. Interreader agreement of the prostate imaging quality
(PI-QUAL) score: a bicentric study. Eur J Radiol.
2022;150:110267.
88. Coelho FMA, Amaral LTW, Mitsutake LKN, Mussi
TC, Baroni RH. Quality assessment of prostate
MRI by PI-QUAL score: inter-reader agreement
and impact on prostate cancer local staging at 3
tesla. Eur J Radiol. 2023;165:110921. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110921.
89. Basar Y, Alis D, Seker ME, etal. Inter-reader agreement of the prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL)
score for basic readers in prostate MRI: a multicenter study. Eur J Radiol. 2023;110923:110923.
90. Giganti F, Dinneen E, Kasivisvanathan V, etal. Interreader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate
MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Eur
Radiol. 2022;32:879.
91. Giganti F, Ng A, Asif A, etal. Global variation in
magnetic resonance imaging quality of the prostate. Radiology. 2023;309(1):e231130. https://doi.
org/10.1148/radiol.231130.
92. Giannarini G, Valotto C, Girometti R, Dal Moro F,
Briganti A, Padhani AR. Measuring the quality of
diagnostic prostate magnetic resonance imaging:
a Urologist’s perspective. Eur Urol. 2020;79(4):
440–1.
93. Davies C, Castle J, Stalbow K, Haslam P. Prostate
mpMRI in the UK: the state of the nation. Clin
Radiol. 2019;74(11):894e11–8.
94. Barchetti F, Panebianco V. Multiparametric
MRI for recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy and postradiation therapy.
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:316272. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2014/316272.
95. Murphy AM, Berkman DS, Desai M, Benson MC,
McKiernan JM, Badani KK.The number of negative
pelvic lymph nodes removed does not affect the risk
of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy.
BJU Int. 2010;105(2):176–9.
96. De Visschere P, Vargas H, Ost P, De Meerleer G,
Villeirs G.Imaging treated prostate cancer. Abdom
Imaging. 2013;38:1431–46.
97. Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Akin O, Hricak H. MR
imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology.
2012;262(1):26–42.
98. Pisansky TM, Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, D'Amico
AV, Selvarajah S.Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy
after prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA guideline amendment 2018-2019. J Urol. 2019;202(3):533–8.
99. Schaeffer E, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. NCCN
Guidelines Version 1.2023 Prostate Cancer. J Natl
Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:1288–98.

154
C. Englman et al.
100. Engels RR, Israël B, Padhani AR, Barentsz
JO. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
for the detection of clinically signicant prostate
cancer: what urologists need to know. Part 1: acquisition. Eur Urol. 2020;77(4):457–68.
101. Potretzke TA, Froemming AT, Gupta RT. Posttreatment prostate MRI. Abdom Radiol.
2020;45(7):2184–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00261- 019- 02348- x.
102. Pecoraro M, Turkbey B, Purysko AS, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy and observer agreement of the MRI prostate imaging for recurrence reporting assessment score. Radiology.
2022;304(2):342–50.
103. Ciccarese F, Corcioni B, Bianchi L, et al. Clinical
application of the new prostate imaging for recurrence reporting (PI-RR) score proposed to evaluate
the local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical
prostatectomy. Cancer. 2022;14(19):4725.
104. Abreu-Gomez J, Dias AB, Ghai S.PI-RR: the prostate imaging for recurrence reporting system for
MRI assessment of local prostate cancer recurrence
after radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy—a
review. Am J Roentgenol. 2023;220(6):852–61.
105. Van Den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, etal. Focal
therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol.
2014;65(6):1078–83.
106. Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, et al. Focal
therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—
a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol.
2015;67(4):771–7.
107. Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, et al.
Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland
ablation for localized prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary consensus. Eur Urol.
2020;78(3):371–8.
108. Postema A, De Reijke T, Ukimura O, et al.
Standardization of denitions in focal therapy of
prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus
project. World J Urol. 2016;34:1373–82.
109. Scheltema M, Tay K, Postema A, etal. Utilization
of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance
imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report
from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol.
2017;35:695–701.
110. Muller B, Van den Bos W, Brausi M, etal. Follow-up
modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer:
results from a Delphi consensus project. World J
Urol. 2015;33:1503–9.
111. Tay KJ, Amin MB, Ghai S, et al. Surveillance
after prostate focal therapy. World J Urol.
2019;37:397–407.
112. Tan WP, Rastinehad AR, Klotz L, etal. Utilization
of focal therapy for patients discontinuing active
surveillance of prostate cancer: recommendations
of an international Delphi consensus. Urol Oncol.
2021;39:781.e17.
113. Nour SG. MR imaging–guided focal treatment of prostate cancer: an update. Radiol Clin.
2018;56(2):301–18.
114. Lindner U, Lawrentschuk N, Trachtenberg J.Image
guidance for focal therapy of prostate cancer. World
J Urol. 2010;28:727–34.
115. Wysock JS, Lepor H.Multi-parametric MRI imaging of the prostate—implications for focal therapy.
Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):453.
116. Barret E, Harvey-Bryan KA, Sanchez-Salas R, Rozet
F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X.How to diagnose and
treat focal therapy failure and recurrence? Curr Opin
Urol. 2014;24(3):241–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MOU.0000000000000052.
117. Bozzini G, Colin P, Nevoux P, Villers A, Mordon S,
Betrouni N.Focal therapy of prostate cancer: energies and procedures. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(2):155–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.05.011.
118. Ehdaie B, Tempany CM, Holland F, et al. MRIguided focused ultrasound focal therapy for patients
with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a phase 2b,
multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(7):910–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470- 2045(22)00251- 0.
119. Paxton M, Barbalat E, Perlis N, etal. Role of multiparametric MRI in long-term surveillance following
focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol.
2022;95(1131):20210414. https://doi.org/10.1259/
bjr.20210414.
120. Barrett T, Padhani AR, Patel A, et al. Certication in
reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2021;127:304–306. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bju.15285.

Employing aQuality Improvement
Program toOptimize
mpMRI-Directed Fusion Biopsy
MahdiMottaghi, MichaelC.Ivey,
SriramDeivasigamani, andRajanT.Gupta
Denition ofQuality Improvement
For any given procedure, there are multiple layers of quality management to achieve better outcomes. “Quality control” refers to a process of
assessment and identication of deviations from
acceptable ranges and trying to rectify them. It is
considered a reactive, remedial tool that acts after
an error has happened. A more developed
approach, “quality assurance,” is a closed-loop,
retrospective process that aims beyond conrming the expected function toward achieving better
results. This systematic approach involves meticulous data collection and evaluation, often coming into effect after an error has occurred; namely,
it includes quality control but also aims to prevent future recurrences (Fig. 15.1). However, a
more dynamic, proactive strategy called “Quality
Improvement (QI)” involves a systematic analysis of processes and outcomes to proactively
identify areas for enhancement; thus, it could be
retrospective or prospective but should be introspective. QI should function as a mechanism to
guarantee the delivery of high-quality healthcare
M. Mottaghi · M. C. Ivey · S. Deivasigamani ·
R. T. Gupta (*)
Duke Cancer Institute and Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC, USA
e-mail: mahdi.mottaghi@duke.edu;
michael.c.ivey@duke.edu;
sriram.deivasigamani@duke.edu;
rajan.gupta@duke.edu
15
Fig. 15.1 Quality Control: Is the system/process func-
tioning as intended? Quality Assessment: In the event of
an error, how can it be preemptively avoided? Quality
Improvement: Proactively strives for enhancement before
the occurrence of errors
to patients, concurrently emphasizing the iterative renement of optimal system performance
standards [1].
Institutional Workow
The cornerstone of fusion biopsy QI lies in the
interdisciplinary communication among the
radiologist, urologist, and pathologist. As the
procedure is operator-dependent and technology-intensive, having an adept nurse/technician
with a urologist at the time of the procedure is
helpful and could potentially decrease errors. As
an example from Duke University Hospital, FB
workow begins with MRI acquisition, interpretation, structured reporting, MR segmentation
(contouring prostate margins), and outlining the
region of interest (ROI) by a dedicated abdominal
radiologist. At the time of the biopsy and joined
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
T. J. Polascik et al. (eds.), Imaging and Focal Therapy of Early Prostate Cancer,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66754-1_15
155

156
M. Mottaghi et al.
by a nurse/technician well- versed in the FB procedure, an experienced urologist reviews the
MRI ndings, proceeds to transrectal ultrasound
(TRUS) acquisition (sweeping the US slowly to
generate a 3D prostate construct) and ultrasound
segmentation (marking prostate boundaries),
executes MRI- ultrasound registration/fusion,
obtains targeted biopsies, and labels each core
before sending them to the pathology ward [2].
As a part of the QI protocol, the radiologist
and urologist convene routinely in person and
collectively examine the imaging for specic
patients before the biopsy to discuss gland segmentation, lesion eligibility, prioritization, and
segmentation. This provides an additional step of
planning, with the main goal of establishing a
mutual understanding of the MRI target(s) and
how they translate for procedure planning. The
second goal of this session is to resolve discordant biopsy results from the previous cases with
the inclusion of the pathologist. Additional benets are ensuring the suitability of the patient for
FB, using the same nomenclature, providing a
structured radiology and pathology reporting for-
mat, and allowing clinically relevant education
for the junior team members. This will help not
only the multidisciplinary team but also each discipline to recognize areas of limited understanding and integrate this knowledge for better
outcomes in the future. When several radiologists
within a practice interpret mpMRI, it is advisable
to periodically conduct this practice collaboratively as a group; this approach facilitates collective learning from any identied mistakes or
discrepancies. Closed-loop feedback in a twoway fashion allows for mutual learning and
improvement, as well as identifying potential
areas for enhancing the procedure. Establishing
robust professional connections with colleagues
in allied specialties associated with prostate cancer is likely to facilitate open and constructive
discussions of this nature. With this institutional
example in mind, we now review and discuss the
opportunities for QI in FB, from the preprocedural visit and the biopsy session to reconciling discordant biopsy results. A summary of
the workow is provided in Table15.1, followed
by a detailed discussion of each step.
Table 15.1 Summary of institutional workow with a brief description
Steps in the workow Description
1. Setting realistic
expectations and
preparation
2. MRI acquisition,
interpretation, and
reporting
3. Lesion eligibility
and prioritization
4. MR segmentation – Marking the boundaries of the prostate and lesion(s) on T2-weighted MRI images
5. Review of MRI data – Import MRI data into the fusion device and review segmentation and MR targets
6. Field generator
placement and
TRUS acquisition
7. US segmentation – Mark prostate boundaries on multiple axes/views (axial, sagittal, coronal)
8. Registration/fusion – Align the MRI and US prostate and lesion borders and fuse (x) them when the
– Mention the limitations and probable need for repeat biopsy, repeat imaging, and
surveillance
– Provide a list of anticipated complications with instructions to minimize confusion
and anxiety
– Ensure high-quality image acquisition through the use of standardized and validated
imaging protocols as well as the presence and engagement of experienced and highly
capable MR technologists
– The expertise of a radiologist(s) interpreting the MR imaging is a crucial factor in a
successful QI program
– Structured radiology reports yield more comprehensive and integrated information
– The dominant lesion is dened as the lesion with the highest PI-RADS score
– If multiple lesions have the same PI-RADS score, priority at the time of sampling is
generally given to the largest lesion
– If multiple lesions share the same score and size, preference is given to the one
demonstrating features of extra-prostatic extension
– Placing the eld generator near the patient and ensuring that the prostate, grid, and the
US probe are in range
– Perform TRUS with a steady and even sweep to obtain prostate images
appropriate overlap is achieved
(continued)

15 Employing aQuality Improvement Program toOptimize mpMRI-Directed Fusion Biopsy
Table 15.1 (continued)
Steps in the workow Description
9. Patient factors
during FB
10. Biopsy – Utilize fusion software for precise target navigation, correlating natural landmarks
11. Reverse fusion – The multidisciplinary review of discordant pathology results of FB by re-evaluation of
– Provide a relaxing environment
– Familiarizing the patient with the sound of the biopsy device
through real-time US
– It is important to rapidly complete the procedure to minimize patient discomfort
imaging and lesion sampling
157
Setting Realistic Expectations
andPatient Preparation
In the current age of technology and communication, individuals frequently engage in online
research before scheduling appointments with
doctors, particularly when confronted with the
daunting term “cancer.” Patients usually learn
about the benets of FB as an advanced
technology- intensive technique compared to
systematic TRUS biopsy. While this is accurate,
individuals may have relatively heightened
expectations of FB outcomes [3]. It is crucial to
communicate the potential limitations of the
technique and equipment to the patient in an
effort to maintain trust in the patient-physician
relationship. Patients must understand that
mpMRI helps to improve localizing the lesion,
but it is not perfect, and repeat FB, repeat imaging, or surveillance might be the next steps [4,
5]. Patients should also receive standard pre-
operative instructions (the need for pre-biopsy
urinalysis, holding blood thinners, pain killers,
and herbal supplements with appropriate consultation, the importance of prophylactic antibiotics, rectal preparation with enema or
suppositories, etc.). Because the patient might
be in pain and has lower tolerance on the day of
the biopsy, providing a list of anticipated
adverse events at the pre-biopsy visit, along
with concise tips for self- management of mild
complications, instills a sense of reassurance
and mitigates anxiety. Equally essential is providing emergency contact information for more
severe complications. Patient-specic counseling is also helpful. For example, men with larger
prostates have higher chances of developing urinary retention and infectious-related hospital-
ization [6]. Sampling periurethral lesions,
especially in mid-gland TZ, has a higher likelihood of post-FB hematuria and urinary
retention.
Healthcare providers should bear in mind that
a signicant proportion of the mentioned patients
may need repeat biopsies for various reasons.
Establishing and fostering patient trust will contribute to delivering enhanced care in subsequent
stages of management.
MRI Acquisition, Interpretation,
andReporting
The diagnostic pathway of PCa detection has
changed in the last decade, and several welldesigned trials strongly recommend mpMRI
acquisition before biopsy [7, 8]. High-quality
MR images are important to accurately detect,
biopsy, and stage clinically signicant PCa
(csPCa) and, ultimately, to appropriately select
patients for focal therapy (FT) or direct them to
another management plan. The expertise of the
radiologist(s) is a pivotal determinant in the
effectiveness and success of a QI program by
enhancing the program’s ability to identify,
address, and implement improvements in diagnostic processes, ultimately leading to more precise targeting and enhanced patient outcomes and
quality of care. Structured radiology reporting is
another important factor that can yield more
comprehensive and integrated information and
minimize confusion between the radiologist creating the report and the urologist reading that
report. A detailed description of the technical
parameters of mpMRI and protocol, mpMRI
quality assessment (PI-QUAL), and Prostate

158
M. Mottaghi et al.
Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)
determination and interpretation is discussed in
the previous chapter as high-quality MR image
acquisition is at the core of this imaging-based
strategy.
Lesion Eligibility andPrioritization
Following image acquisition, the subsequent
crucial step involves identifying areas deemed
suspicious for biopsy. To get the most yield
from histological examination, several factors
should be considered, like the level of suspicion
on mpMRI (PI-RADS), lesion size, and distance
from the prostate capsule (possibility of extraprostatic extension). The dominant lesion is
characterized as the lesion exhibiting the highest PI-RADS score. Similar to evidence from
high- volume centers [9], in our institutional
analysis involving 392 patients with a total of
521 lesions that were biopsied with a single
urologist with more than 11years of experience
with FB, the positive predictive values (PPV)
for PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3in detecting any PCa
and csPCa were determined to be 0.80, 0.55,
and 0.24, and 0.63, 0.33, and 0.09, respectively
[5]. Even though the PI-RADS system is not
perfect and continues to be iterated to ensure its
continued strong diagnostic performance, the
degree of suspicion for clinically signicant
prostate cancer has been a predictor of FB success, and the latest PI-RADS version (2.1) provides higher PPV, especially for lesions
originating in the TZ [9, 10]. Some studies proposed that in addition to the PI-RADS score,
accounting for patient characteristics (i.e., age,
PSA density, history of prostate biopsy, race,
and family history) could yield a better assessment of suspicion and csPCa detection, especially for PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions [11–14].
Tumor volume could be considered another
predicting factor for detecting a csPCa following FB. In cases where multiple lesions share
the same score, the largest lesion or the one
demonstrating indications of extra-prostatic
extension is chosen to be prioritized at the time
of targeting/biopsy. Based on our institutional
experience, lesions lower than 0.2mL could be
targeted successfully by an experienced team,
but a lower tumor volume on mpMRI is correlated with a lower likelihood of csPCa detection
[15, 16].
MR Segmentation
MR prostate segmentation is done by using
T2-weighted imaging, usually in the axial plane,
as it is the highest resolution anatomic sequence
in prostate mpMRI.Then, the lesion boundaries
are selected from neighboring slices to form a
3D lesion for targeting. The process is done
mostly manually, and the operator is usually a
radiologist or, in certain cases, the urologist. The
manual process is operator-dependent and can
be time- consuming, and there is growing interest
in the incorporation of AI-based methodology
for a more precise, time-sensitive prostate segmentation [17]. Some articles suggest perilesional biopsies to account for variations in
determining the target-lesion boundaries [18].
Any inaccuracies occurring at this phase result
in subsequent errors in the procedure. One of the
main steps during MR segmentation is marking
the boundaries of anterior bromuscular stroma
(AFMS). Despite the distinct AFMS margins on
mpMRI, it is hard to dene a sharp anterior border via the US during the procedure (Fig.15.2).
Additionally, the apex of the prostate is frequently indistinct in the US due to anatomical
variations (Fig.15.3), and the prostate base may
pose challenges due to the presence of an intravesical or irregularly shaped median lobe [19]. It
is imperative to perform MR segmentation with
consideration for US limitations during the
biopsy.
In practical situations, uncertainty may arise
in contouring, requiring decisive judgment based
on the individual’s expertise. In situations where
the urologist is not the individual conducting the
MR segmentation, understanding and communicating these operator-dependent decisions are
paramount to achieving optimal results.

cd
15 Employing aQuality Improvement Program toOptimize mpMRI-Directed Fusion Biopsy
159
a
Fig. 15.2 Margin of AFMS is evident on MRI due to the higher tissue contrast between the AFMS and the adjacent
prostate tissue/periprostatic fat (a), while it is harder to distinguish it on US (b)
a
b
b
Fig. 15.3 Variations of apex view on sagittal US.Anterior
apex can overlap the membranous urethra (a, b). Similar
variation is possible for the posterior apex (a, c). No overlap is also possible (d). (The image is reused with permis-
US Segmentation
sion: Park, J.S., Lee, D., Koo, K.C., et al. The role of
prostatic apex shape in voiding symptoms and urine ow:
an exploratory and conrmatory study. World J Urol 38,
1275–1282 (2020), Springer Nature)
TRUS starts with a slow sweep of the probe
(which could be craniocaudal or from side to side
The eld generator (or electromagnetic tracker)
keeps track of the grid, probe, and needle trajectory during the procedure. It must be positioned
in a location that sufciently covers the biopsy
eld and tracks the needles in 3D space. The US
probe should be covered with an endocavity
balloon, which is already lled with 10–20mL of
US gel, in a way that no air remains within the
balloon to avoid artifacts during the procedure.
based on the platform), and 3D construction of
the prostate is built from a series of 2D slices. US
segmentation should be done with consideration
of MR segmentation. For instance, if a protruded
intravesical median lobe is evident in the US but
is not marked in the MR segmentation, the delity of the resultant fusion will be impaired. The
platform we use in our institution can record this
stage (upon clicking on the recording button)

160
M. Mottaghi et al.
through the end of the biopsy. This will be helpful in reassessment of the possible errors during
the procedure in case of any unexpected results,
which will be discussed later in this chapter.
To achieve a steady and even sweep, the urologist can hold the probe with the elbow at 90° and
rotate the probe from pronation to supination
while keeping the forearm and wrist in a straight
line. In cases where the MRI is obtained with an
endorectal coil (ERC), the urologist may need to
modify the pressure applied by the US probe to
align more closely with the observed deformation of the prostate due to the ERC. However,
applying disproportionate probe pressure on the
prostate should be avoided, as it can lead to displacement and deformation of the prostate.
Worthy to mention that the lesion can also be dislocated by the inappropriate pressure of US probe
and the degree of lesion displacement is higher
for the posterior midline lesions (peripheral zone)
compared to anterior lesions due to their closer
proximity to the probe and rectum [20].
Application of extra pressure on US probe can
cause additional distortions in the 3D US construct and result in a suboptimal fusion. The urologist should check the shape of the 3D US
construct during the US segmentation. Abnormal
shapes could be generated due to uneven sweep,
calcications, and apex anatomical variation.
Adjusting US contrast to get a sharper gland border and repeating the sweep might rectify this
error.
MR-US Registration/Fusion
Registration regarding MR-targeted FB refers to
the process that involves bringing MRI and US
images in spatial alignment. When appropriate
alignment is achieved during the procedure, both
images are fused together so the urologist can
proceed to the lesion targeting. The accuracy of
the image registration is crucial for proper targeting, especially for smaller US-invisible targets
and those far from internal ducials (prostate
boundaries, urethra, cysts, calcications, etc.).
Different platforms that are available for MRItargeted FB are explained in Chap. 18 of this text-
book by Rais-Bahrami et al. There are two
available algorithms for image registration, rigid
and elastic, and most of the fusion platforms offer
both.
• Rigid registration superimposes 3D MR and
US reconstructions based on corresponding
borders. The borders are xed (i.e., rigid) for
each reconstruction, but their overlay is adjustable through rotational or translational movement of the US image across all three axes.
• Elastic (or non-rigid) registration uses an
additional software program to warp the
inconsistent borders of MR based on real-time
US segmentation during the procedure to provide a better visually registered image.
The apparent malalignments between MRI
and US images by rigid registration led to the
development of elastic registration for a more
homogenous image. Most of the clinical studies
comparing these registration algorithms reported
similar efcacy in lesion targeting [21, 22].
Lesion registration error is one of the major
reasons for failed FB, and operator experience is
likely the main factor, as most of the data used for
comparison between the algorithms originated
from high-volume centers with experienced staff
[23, 24]. Meticulous ne-tuning of the rigid registration, coupled with careful reassessment
across multiple planes, can provide the operator
with a more comprehensive understanding of the
spatial relationship between the target and internal ducials. On the contrary, although elastic
registration accommodates variations in prostate
deformation caused by factors such as the ERC,
US probe, or patient positioning, it also introduces additional technical complexity and the
possibility of information loss from the MR construct. For instance, a phantom study by Pinto
etal. showed that lesions near the prostate edge
are signicantly more likely higher likelihood of
failed FB via the elastic registration [23]. An
indicative measure of successful registration is
the precision of target alignment when contrasted
with visual targeting [2]. A visible lesion on the
US that corresponds to the ROI could be a reassuring sign. QI in using any of the mentioned
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
