ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study: protocol for a single-centre feasibility study inviting men for prostate cancer screening using MRI

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566).

Prostate cancer

The management of prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, with substantial advances being made in understanding the genomic landscape and biology underpinning both primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Similarly, the emergence of more sensitive imaging methods has improved diagnostic and staging accuracy and refined surveillance strategies. These advances have introduced personalised therapeutics to clinical practice, with treatments targeting genomic alterations in DNA repair pathways now clinically validated. An important shift in the therapeutic framework for metastatic disease has taken place, with metastatic-directed therapies being evaluated for oligometastatic disease, aggressive management of the primary lesion shown to benefit patients with low-volume metastatic disease, and with several novel androgen pathway inhibitors significantly improving survival when used as a first-line therapy for metastatic disease. Research into the molecular characterisation of localised, recurrent, and progressive disease will undoubtedly have an impact on clinical management. Similarly, emerging research into novel therapeutics, such as targeted radioisotopes and immunotherapy, holds much promise for improving the lives of patients with prostate cancer.

Establishing a global quality of care benchmark report

BACKGROUND

The Movember funded TrueNTH Global Registry (TNGR) aims to improve care by collecting and analysing a consistent dataset to identify variation in disease management, benchmark care delivery in accordance with best practice guidelines and provide this information to those in a position to enact change. We discuss considerations of designing and implementing a quality of care report for TNGR.

METHODS

Eleven working group sessions were held prior to and as reports were being built with representation from clinicians, data managers and investigators contributing to TNGR. The aim of the meetings was to understand current data display approaches, share literature review findings and ideas for innovative approaches. Preferred displays were evaluated with two surveys (survey 1: 5 clinicians and 5 non-clinicians, 83% response rate; survey 2: 17 clinicians and 18 non-clinicians, 93% response rate).

RESULTS

Consensus on dashboard design and three data-display preferences were achieved. The dashboard comprised two performance summary charts; one summarising site's relative quality indicator (QI) performance and another to summarise data quality. Binary outcome QIs were presented as funnel plots. Patient-reported outcome measures of function score and the extent to which men were bothered by their symptoms were presented in bubble plots. Time series graphs were seen as providing important information to supplement funnel and bubble plots. R Markdown was selected as the software program principally because of its excellent analytic and graph display capacity, open source licensing model and the large global community sharing program code enhancements.

CONCLUSIONS

International collaboration in creating and maintaining clinical quality registries has allowed benchmarking of process and outcome measures on a large scale. A registry report system was developed with stakeholder engagement to produce dynamic reports that provide user-specific feedback to 132 participating sites across 13 countries.

Which Prostate Cancers are Undetected by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Previous Prostate Biopsy? An Analysis from the PICTURE Study

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for suspected prostate cancer in patients following prior biopsy. However, not all significant cancers are detected by mpMRI. The PICTURE study provides the ideal opportunity to investigate cancer undetected by mpMRI owing to the use of 5 mm transperineal template mapping (TTPM) biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

To summarise attributes of cancers systematically undetected by mpMRI in patients with prior biopsy.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which men requiring repeat biopsy underwent mpMRI followed by TTPM biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Attributes were compared between cancers detected and undetected by mpMRI at the patient level. Four predefined histopathological thresholds were used as the target condition for TTPM biopsy. Application of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was explored.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

When nonsuspicious mpMRI was defined as Likert score 1-2, 2.9% of patients (3/103; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-8.3%) with definition 1 disease (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or maximum cancer core length [MCCL] ≥ 6 mm of any grade) had their cancer not detected by mpMRI. This proportion was 6.5% (11/168; 95% CI 3.3-11%) for definition 2 disease (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm of any grade), 4.8% (7/146; 95% CI 2.0-9.6%) for any amount of Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 cancer, and 9.3% (20/215; 95% CI 5.8-14%) for any cancer. Definition 1 cancers undetected by mpMRI had lower overall Gleason score (p = 0.02) and maximum Gleason score (p = 0.01) compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had shorter MCCL than cancers detected by mpMRI for every cancer threshold: definition 1, 6 versus 8 mm (p = 0.02); definition 2, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.04); any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.03); and any cancer, 3 versus 5 mm (p = 0.0009). A theoretical PSAD threshold of 0.15 ng/ml/ml reduced the proportion of patients with undetected disease on nonsuspicious mpMRI to 0% (0/105; 95% CI 0-3.5%) for definition 1, 0.58% (1/171; 95% CI 0.01-3.2%) for definition 2, and 0% (0/146) for any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Few significant cancers are undetected by mpMRI in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsy. Undetected tumours are of lower overall and maximum Gleason grade and shorter cancer length compared to cancers detected by mpMRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In patients with a previous prostate biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overlooks few prostate cancers, and these tend to be smaller and less aggressive than cancer that is detected.

Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial

Objectives

The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.

Methods

We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement.

Results

The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1–2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%).

Conclusion

We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted.

Key Points

• Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 – 1) and percent agreement = 84%.

• Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 – 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%.

• T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08169-1.

Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score

There is increasing interest in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer pathway. The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) now advise mpMRI prior to biopsy, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate.The widespread and swift adoption of this technique has led to variability in image quality. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer.This critical review outlines the studies aimed at improving prostate MR quality that have been published over the last 5 years. These span from the use of specific MR sequences, magnets and coils to patient preparation. The rates of adherence of prostate mpMRI to technical standards in different cohorts across the world are also discussed.Finally, we discuss the first standardised scoring system (i.e., Prostate Imaging Quality, PI-QUAL) that has been created to evaluate image quality, although further iterations of this score are expected in the future.

Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of high diagnostic quality is a key determinant for either detection or exclusion of prostate cancer. Adequate high spatial resolution on T2-weighted imaging, good diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences of high signal-to-noise ratio are the prerequisite for a high-quality MRI study of the prostate. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score was created to assess the diagnostic quality of a scan against a set of objective criteria as per Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System recommendations, together with criteria obtained from the image. The PI-QUAL score is a 1-to-5 scale where a score of 1 indicates that all MR sequences (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences) are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, a score of 3 means that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and a score of 5 implies that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. The purpose of this educational review is to provide a practical guide to assess the quality of prostate MRI using PI-QUAL and to familiarise the radiologist and all those involved in prostate MRI with this scoring system. A variety of images are also presented to demonstrate the difference between suboptimal and good prostate MR scans.

Update from the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study NCT04063566: Inviting Men for Prostate Cancer Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

ReIMAGINE Screening is a single-centre study assessing the feasibility of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a screening tool for prostate cancer. The study outcomes will take us a step towards more accurate and less harmful prostate cancer screening.

Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial

Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR): International Consensus -based Guidelines on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Recurrence after Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Imaging techniques are used to identify local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) for salvage therapy and to exclude metastases that should be addressed with systemic therapy. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a reduction in the variability of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is required to detect local PCa recurrence in men with biochemical relapse after local treatment with curative intent.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a standardised method for image acquisition and assessment of PCa local recurrence using MRI after radiation therapy (RP) and radical prostatectomy (RT).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was formulated using the existing literature. An international panel of experts conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature. The PI-RR system was created via consensus through a combination of face-to-face and online discussions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Similar to with PI-RADS, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion, the minimum acceptable MRI parameters for detection of recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are set. Also, a simplified and standardised terminology and content of the reports that use five assessment categories to summarise the suspicion of local recurrence (PI-RR) are designed. PI-RR scores of 1 and 2 are assigned to lesions with a very low and low likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR 3 is assigned if the presence of recurrence is uncertain. PI-RR 4 and 5 are assigned for a high and very high likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a structured reporting system (PI-RR) for MRI evaluation of local recurrence of PCa after RT and RP.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A new method called PI-RR was developed to promote standardisation and reduce variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating local recurrence of prostate cancer and guiding therapy.

Long-term biopsy outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biopsy after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) is an infrequently used but potentially valuable technique to evaluate local recurrence and predict long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of studies until March 2020 where a post-EBRT biopsy was performed on patients with low-to intermediate risk PCa, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the aggregate post-EBRT positive biopsy rate (≥2 years after EBRT) and the associated odds ratio (OR) of a positive biopsy on biochemical failure (BCF), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). A sensitivity analysis was performed which examined biopsy rate as a function of post-EBRT biopsy protocol, PCa risk, ADT usage and radiation dose.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included, of which 10 were randomised controlled trials and 12 were cohort studies. Nine out of the 22 studies used dosing regimens consistent with the 2020 NCCN radiotherapy guidelines. The weighted-average positive biopsy rate across all 22 studies was 32% (95%-CI: 25-39%, n = 3017). In studies where post-treatment biopsy was part of the study protocol, the rate was 35% (95%-CI: 21-38%, n = 2450). In the subgroup of studies that conformed to the 2020 NCCN radiotherapy guidelines, this rate was 22% (95% CI: 19-41%, n = 832). Patients with positive biopsy had a 10-fold higher odds of developing BCF (OR of 10.3, 95%-CI: 3.7-28.7, p < 0.00001), 3-fold higher odds of developing distant metastasis (OR 3.1, 95%-CI: 2.1-4.7, p < 0.00001) and 5-fold higher odds of dying from their PCa (OR 5.1, 95%-CI: 2.6-10, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

A positive biopsy after EBRT is associated with a poor prognosis compared to a negative biopsy. The post-EBRT positive biopsy rate is an important measure which provides additional insight when comparing EBRT to other treatment modalities for PCa.

A Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Assessment of Study Quality in Genetic Urological Research

Our modification of the traditional Newcastle-Ottawa scale enables urological researchers to effectively appraise and communicate the quality of genetic-based research in urology.

The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Primary Staging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

Management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) is guided in part by accurate clinical staging. The role of imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), in initial staging remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the studies of MRI and/or PET/CT in the staging of newly diagnosed PCa with respect to tumor (T), nodal (N), and metastatic (M) staging (TNM staging).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of the literature using MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between 2012 and 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 139 studies (83 on T, 47 on N, and 24 on M status) were included. Ninety-nine (71%) were retrospective, 39 (28%) were prospective, and one was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Most studies on T staging examined MRI, while PET/CT was used primarily for N and M staging. Sensitivity for the detection of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node invasion ranged widely. When imaging was incorporated into existing risk tools, gain in accuracy was observed in some studies, although these findings have not been replicated. For M staging, most favorable results were reported for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT, which demonstrated significantly better performance than conventional imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of studies on modern imaging techniques for TNM staging in newly diagnosed PCa exist. For T and N staging, reported sensitivity of imaging modalities such as MRI or PET/CT varied widely due to data heterogeneity, small sample size, and low event rates resulting in large confidence intervals and a high level of uncertainty. Therefore, uniformity in data presentation and standardization on this topic are needed. The most promising technique for M staging, which was evaluated recently in an RCT, is PSMA-PET/CT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed a systematic review of currently available imaging modalities to stage newly diagnosed prostate cancer. With respect to local tumor and lymph node assessment, performance of imaging ranged widely. However, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography showed favorable results for the detection of distant metastases.

Assessment of a patient-reported outcome measure in men with prostate cancer who had radical surgery: a Rasch analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the psychometric properties (and identify specific anomalies to be resolved) of urinary and sexual function scales of the Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) instrument for use in clinical practice with individual men using Rasch analysis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

9 UK surgery centres in secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

403 men diagnosed with prostate cancer and completed at least one questionnaire immediately before and at 1 or 3 months after radical prostatectomy.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

STAR instrument before surgery and 1 and 3 months afterwards.

RESULTS

Neither scale fitted the Rasch model (both scales p<0.001). Both urinary (seven items) and sexual function (six items) had disordered thresholds, suggesting response categories are not working as intended. Both scales (three urinary items; five sexual function items) showed problems with item fit (large fit residuals, significant χ², an inspection of item characteristic curves). Both scales showed items that were unstable over time (differential item functioning (DIF) by time). Both scales (four pairs of items in each scale) showed local response dependency (residual correlations >0.2 above the average). Internal consistency was acceptable at the group level for both scales. Targeting was poor for both scales, indicating an inadequate match between the location of items and the distribution of the patients, suggesting that the underlying constructs that the scales purport to measure are not clear.

CONCLUSION

Using Rasch analysis as a diagnostic tool, we identified that both the urinary and the sexual function scales have issues that need to be resolved before STAR can be used with confidence in clinical practice. The sexual function scale, in particular, is unlikely to provide precise estimates for the outcomes experienced by men after radical prostatectomy. These results demonstrate the need to evaluate the suitability of any patient-reported outcome measure before implementation in routine clinical practice, preferably using modern psychometric methods.

Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL): A New Quality Control Scoring System for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate from the PRECISION trial

The PRECISION trial was a multicentre randomised study that demonstrated that multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy is superior to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. The outcomes of studies reporting mpMRI-targeted biopsies are dependent on the quality of the mpMRI but there are currently no scoring systems available for evaluating this. We introduced a novel scoring system, the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, to assess the quality of scans in the PRECISION trial. PI-QUAL is a score on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means that no mpMRI sequences are of diagnostic quality and 5 implies that each sequence is independently of optimal diagnostic quality. Fifty-eight out of 252 (23%) mpMRI scans chosen at random from each of the 22 centres in this trial were evaluated by two experienced radiologists from the coordinating trial centre, in consensus, blinded to pathology results. Overall, the mpMRI quality in the centres participating in PRECISION was good. MpMRI quality was of sufficient diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL ≥3) for 55 scans (95%) and of good or optimal diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL ≥4) for 35 scans (60%). Fifty-five out of 58 (95%) scans were of diagnostic quality for T2WI, followed by DWI (46/58 scans; 79%), and DCE (38/58 scans; 66%). Further validation of this scoring system is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we developed a scoring system (PI-QUAL) to assess the quality of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in prostate cancer detection. We used scans from 22 centres that participated in the PRECISION trial. Although there was room for improvement in images that used intravenous contrast, we found that mpMRI in the PRECISION trial was of sufficient diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL score ≥3) for 95% of the scans.

Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

Objectives

The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol.

Methods

A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves.

Results

Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Conclusions

Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

Key Points

• Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

• Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS.

• Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07256-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What to expect from a non-suspicious prostate MRI? A review

BACKGROUND

Many guidelines now recommend multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to an initial or repeat prostate biopsy. However, clinical decision making for men with a non-suspicious mpMRI (Likert or PIRADS score 1-2) varies.

OBJECTIVES

To review the most recent literature to answer three questions. (1) Should we consider systematic biopsy if mpMRI is not suspicious? (2) Are there additional predictive factors that can help decide which patient should have a biopsy? (3) Can the low visibility of some cancers be explained and what are the implications?

SOURCES

A narrative review was performed in Medline databases using two searches with the terms "MRI" and "prostate cancer" and ("diagnosis" or "biopsy") and ("non-suspicious" or "negative" or "invisible"); "prostate cancer MRI visible". References of the selected articles were screened for additional articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in the last 5 years in English language were assessed for eligibility and selected if data was available to answer one of the three study questions.

RESULTS

Considering clinically significant cancer as ISUP grade≥2, the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in various settings and populations ranges from 76% to 99%, depending on cancer prevalence and the type of confirmatory reference test used. NPV is higher among patients with prior negative biopsy (88-96%), and lower for active surveillance patients (85-90%). The PSA density (PSAd) with a threshold of PSAd<0.15ng/ml/ml was the most studied and relevant predictive factor used in combination with mpMRI to rule out clinically significant cancer. Finally, mpMRI-invisible tumours appear to differ from a histopathological and genetic point of view, conferring clinical advantage to invisibility.

LIMITATIONS

Most published data come from expert centres and results may not be reproducible in all settings.

CONCLUSION

mpMRI has high diagnostic accuracy and in cases of negative mpMRI, PSA density can be used to determine which patient should have a biopsy. Growing knowledge of the mechanisms and genetics underlying MRI visibility will help develop more accurate risk calculators and biomarkers.

Prostate cancer measurements on serial MRI during active surveillance: it's time to be PRECISE

OBJECTIVE

The PRECISE criteria for reporting multiparametric MRI in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time using a 1-5 scale, where 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. According to the PRECISE recommendations, the index lesion size can be reported using different definitions of volume (planimetry or ellipsoid formula) or by measuring one or two diameters. We compared different measurements using planimetry as the reference standard and stratified changes according to the PRECISE scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 196 patients on AS with PCa confirmed by targeted biopsy who had two MR scans (baseline and follow-up). Lesions were measured on T₂ weighted imaging (T₂WI) according to all definitions. A PRECISE score was assessed for each patient.

RESULTS

The ellipsoid formula exhibited the highest correlation with planimetry at baseline (ρ = 0.97) and follow-up (ρ = 0.98) imaging, compared to the biaxial measurement and single maximum diameter. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the yearly percentage volume change between radiological regression/stability (PRECISE 2-3) and progression (PRECISE 4-5) for planimetry (39.64%) and for the ellipsoid formula (46.78%).

CONCLUSION

The ellipsoid formula could be used to monitor tumour growth during AS. Evidence of a significant yearly percentage volume change between radiological regression/stability (PRECISE 2-3) and progression (PRECISE 4-5) has been also observed.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The ellipsoid formula is a reasonable surrogate for planimetry in capturing tumour volume changes on T₂WI in patients on imaging-led AS. This is also associated with radiological changes using the PRECISE recommendations.

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The reported negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI is used by some clinicians to aid in decision making about whether or not to proceed to biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to perform a contemporary systematic review that reflects the latest literature on optimal mpMRI techniques and scoring systems to update the NPV of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a systematic literature search and included studies from 2016 to September 4, 2019, which assessed the NPV of mpMRI for csPCa, using biopsy or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. To ensure that studies included in this analysis reflect contemporary practice, we only included studies in which mpMRI findings were interpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) or similar Likert grading system. We define negative mpMRI as either (1) PIRADS/Likert 1-2 or (2) PIRADS/Likert 1-3; csPCa was defined as either (1) Gleason grade group ≥2 or (2) Gleason grade group ≥3. We calculated NPV separately for each combination of negative mpMRI and csPCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 42 studies with 7321 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Using definition (1) for negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV for biopsy-naïve men was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.1-93.1%). When defining csPCa using definition (2), the NPV for csPCa was 97.1% (95% CI 94.9-98.7%). Calculation of the pooled NPV using definition (2) for negative mpMRI and definition (1) for csPCa yielded the following: 86.8% (95% CI 80.1-92.4%). Using definition (2) for both negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV from two studies was 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-98.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is generally an accurate test for ruling out csPCa. However, we observed heterogeneity in the NPV estimates, and local institutional data should form the basis of decision making if available.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The negative predictive values should assist in decision making for clinicians considering not proceeding to biopsy in men with elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reported as negative (or equivocal) on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert scoring. Some 7-10% of men, depending on the setting, will miss a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer if they do not proceed to biopsy. Given the institutional variation in results, it is of upmost importance to base decision making on local data if available.

Genetic alterations in the 3q26.31-32 locus confer an aggressive prostate cancer phenotype

Large-scale genetic aberrations that underpin prostate cancer development and progression, such as copy-number alterations (CNAs), have been described but the consequences of specific changes in many identified loci is limited. Germline SNPs in the 3q26.31 locus are associated with aggressive prostate cancer, and is the location of NAALADL2, a gene overexpressed in aggressive disease. The closest gene to NAALADL2 is TBL1XR1, which is implicated in tumour development and progression. Using publicly-available cancer genomic data we report that NAALADL2 and TBL1XR1 gains/amplifications are more prevalent in aggressive sub-types of prostate cancer when compared to primary cohorts. In primary disease, gains/amplifications occurred in 15.99% (95% CI: 13.02–18.95) and 14.96% (95% CI: 12.08–17.84%) for NAALADL2 and TBL1XR1 respectively, increasing in frequency in higher Gleason grade and stage tumours. Gains/amplifications result in transcriptional changes and the development of a pro-proliferative and aggressive phenotype. These results support a pivotal role for copy-number gains in this genetic region.

Benjamin Simpson et al. use publicly available cancer genomic data to investigate copy number changes at the 3q26.31–32 locus, which has been associated with aggressive prostate cancer based on single-nucleotide polymorphisms. They find that gains of NAALADL2 and TBL1XR1 in this locus are associated with more aggressive subtypes of prostate cancer and the transcription of pro-proliferative signalling processes.