Background/Aims: Pancreatic stenting reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and aids in cannulation in difficult cases. However, conservative endoscopists may stop at this step, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. This study assessed the efficacy of transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) as a rescue procedure following pancreatic stenting. Methods: Between March 2013 and November 2018, 82 patients underwent pancreatic stenting at our institution prior to successful biliary cannulation. TPS was introduced in April 2016, and patients were divided into Before TPS and After TPS groups. The outcomes included cannulation success, PEP incidence, and predictors of TPS conversion. Results: There were 43 and 39 patients in the Before TPS and After TPS groups, respectively. Twenty-two patients (56.4%) underwent conversion to TPS in the After TPS group. The After TPS group had a higher bile duct cannulation rate (89.7% vs. 72.1%) than the Before TPS group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.054). Multivariate analysis showed that age >50 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.181; p=0.021) and being in the After TPS group (OR, 0.712; p=0.039) were independently associated with reduced PEP risk. Haraldsson Type 2 and Type 4 papillae carried a relatively high TPS conversion rate. Conclusions A stepwise cannulation strategy that incorporates TPS after pancreatic stenting minimizes the need for advanced techniques and improves PEP outcomes.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.