VERDICT MRI for Prostate Cancer: Intracellular Volume Fraction versus Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

Background Biologic specificity of diffusion MRI in relation to prostate cancer aggressiveness may improve by examining separate components of the diffusion MRI signal. The Vascular, Extracellular, and Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumors (VERDICT) model estimates three distinct signal components and associates them to (a) intracellular water, (b) water in the extracellular extravascular space, and (c) water in the microvasculature. Purpose To evaluate the repeatability, image quality, and diagnostic utility of intracellular volume fraction (FIC) maps obtained with VERDICT prostate MRI and to compare those maps with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps for Gleason grade differentiation. Materials and Methods Seventy men (median age, 62.2 years; range, 49.5-82.0 years) suspected of having prostate cancer or undergoing active surveillance were recruited to a prospective study between April 2016 and October 2017. All men underwent multiparametric prostate and VERDICT MRI. Forty-two of the 70 men (median age, 67.7 years; range, 50.0-82.0 years) underwent two VERDICT MRI acquisitions to assess repeatability of FIC measurements obtained with VERDICT MRI. Repeatability was measured with use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The image quality of FIC and ADC maps was independently evaluated by two board-certified radiologists. Forty-two men (median age, 64.8 years; range, 49.5-79.6 years) underwent targeted biopsy, which enabled comparison of FIC and ADC metrics in the differentiation between Gleason grades. Results VERDICT MRI FIC demonstrated ICCs of 0.87-0.95. There was no significant difference between image quality of ADC and FIC maps (score, 3.1 vs 3.3, respectively; P = .90). FIC was higher in lesions with a Gleason grade of at least 3+4 compared with benign and/or Gleason grade 3+3 lesions (mean, 0.49 ± 0.17 vs 0.31 ± 0.12, respectively; P = .002). The difference in ADC between these groups did not reach statistical significance (mean, 1.42 vs 1.16 × 10-3 mm2/sec; P = .26). Conclusion Fractional intracellular volume demonstrates high repeatability and image quality and enables better differentiation of a Gleason 4 component cancer from benign and/or Gleason 3+3 histology than apparent diffusion coefficient. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sigmund and Rosenkrantz in this issue.

Sequential prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance: initial experience of a dedicated PRECISE software program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is interest in using sequential multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to assess men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations propose standardised reporting mpMRI data for these men. This includes accurate size measurements of lesions over time, but such approach is time consuming for the radiologist and there is a strong need of dedicated tools to report serial scans in a systematic manner. We present the results from an initial validation cohort using dedicated PRECISE reporting software to allow automated comparison between sequential scans on AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed baseline and follow-up scans of 20 men randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) from the MAPPED trial. Men underwent 3T mpMRI at baseline and after 6 months, and a dedicated radiologist reported the scans using both a widespread commercially-available platform (Osirix®) and a semi-automated dedicated PRECISE reporting tool (MIM®). Tumour volume by planimetry in all sequences and conspicuity on diffusion-weighted imaging were assessed. Reporting time was recorded, and we used the Wilcoxon test for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Median tumour volumes and conspicuity were similar using both approaches. The reporting time of the follow-up scan was quicker using the PRECISE reporting workflow both in the whole population (12'33″ vs 10'52″; p = 0.005) and in the dutasteride arm (15'50″ vs 12'59″; p = 0.01). A structured report including clinical and imaging data was generated according to the PRECISE recommendations and a comparison table between lesion characteristics at baseline and follow-up scans was also included.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a dedicated PRECISE reporting tool for sequential scans in men on AS results in a significant reduction in the reporting time and allows the radiologist to easily compare scans over time. This tool will help with our understanding of the natural history of mpMRI changes during AS.

Development of Technologic Solutions to Address Complex Local Requirements of an International Prostate Cancer Clinical Quality Registry

PURPOSE

To detail the process for importing a defined data set into a centralized global registry via a secure file transfer platform and to understand the barriers to the establishment of a centralized global registry.

RESULTS

A bespoke solution was developed to allow transmission of data from international local data centers to a centralized repository. Data elements included in the import template were drawn from existing International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement variables and refined to ensure accurate benchmarking as well as feasibility in data completeness. The data set was organized in accordance with the prostate cancer care trajectory. Key considerations in developing the data transfer platform included import file format, process of input validation, and technical provisions. Given the diversity in the legislation and ethical requirements with respect to consent, data handling, and cross-border data transfer across geographic locations, we encouraged each local data center to consult with its legal advisors and research ethics committee early on in the process.

DISCUSSION

A global collaboration, although highly valuable, posed many challenges because of inconsistent methods of data collection. User acceptance of a system is paramount to the success of establishing a metaregistry. Local information technology support and regular regression testing ensures quality and maintenance of the database.

CONCLUSION

We developed a Web-based system to facilitate the collection and secure storage of common data, which is scalable and secure. It is anticipated that through systematic recording of data, global standards of clinical practice and outcomes of care will see vast improvements.

Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement

Objectives

To develop a consensus statement on current best practice of active surveillance (AS) in the UK, informed by patients and clinical experts.

Subjects and Methods

A consensus statement was drafted on the basis of three sources of data: systematic literature search of national and international guidelines; data arising from a Freedom of Information Act request to UK urology departments regarding their current practice of AS; and survey and interview responses from men with localized prostate cancer regarding their experiences and views of AS. The Prostate Cancer UK Expert Reference Group (ERG) on AS was then convened to discuss and refine the statement.

Results

Guidelines and protocols for AS varied significantly in terms of risk stratification, criteria for offering AS, and protocols for AS between and within countries. Patients and healthcare professionals identified clinical, emotional and process needs for AS to be effective. Men with prostate cancer wanted more information and psychological support at the time of discussing AS with the treating team and in the first 2 years of AS, and a named healthcare professional to discuss any questions or concerns they had. The ERG agreed 30 consensus statements regarding best practice for AS. Statements were grouped under headings: ‘Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria’; ‘AS follow‐up protocol’ and ‘When to stop AS’.

Conclusion

Significant variation currently exists in the practice of AS in the UK and internationally. Men have clear views on the level of involvement in treatment decisions and support from their treating professionals when receiving AS. The Prostate Cancer UK AS ERG has developed a set of consensus statements for best practice in AS. Evidence for best practice in AS, and the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in AS, is still evolving, and further studies are needed to determine how to optimize AS outcomes.

Magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer: Perspectives from the UK, Europe and USA

There is yet no international consensus on the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis, with different uses in different health care systems around the world. In this report we will discuss the use of mpMRI in the United Kingdom, Europe and in the United States of America, comparing the most important guidelines and major papers over the last few years.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study

PURPOSE

Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy is an increasingly used method of procuring tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer. We report patient related outcome measures and adverse events in men in the PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) who underwent this diagnostic test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 249 men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy as a validation study. Functional outcomes before and after transperineal template prostate mapping were prospectively collected and recorded with questionnaires, including the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the I-PSS-QoL (Quality of Life), the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15) and the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) urinary function.

RESULTS

Mean age was 62 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml and median gland size was 37 ml. At transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy a median of 49 cores (IQR 40-55) were taken. Mean time to complete the post-procedure patient related outcome measure questionnaires was 46 days. Adverse events included post-procedure acute urinary retention in 24% of patients, rectal pain in 26% and perineal pain in 41%. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in scores on the I-PSS from 10.9 to 11.8 (p = 0.024) and the I-PSS-QoL from 1.57 to 1.76 (p = 0.03). The IIEF-15 erectile function score decreased by 23.2% from 47.7 to 38.7 (p <0.001). Significant deterioration was noted in all 5 of IIEF-15 functional domains, including erectile and orgasmic function, sexual desire, and intercourse and overall satisfaction (p <0.001). EPIC urinary scores showed no overall change from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy.

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial

PURPOSE

We evaluated the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and compared visual estimation to image fusion targeting in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The prospective, ethics committee approved PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) enrolled 249 consecutive patients from January 11, 2012 to January 29, 2014. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and were blinded to the results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. In 200 men with a lesion this was preceded by visual estimation and image fusion targeted biopsies. As the primary study end point clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or any grade of cancer with a length of 6 mm or greater. Other definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD patient age was 62.6 ± 7 years, median prostate specific antigen was 7.17 ng/ml (IQR 5.25-10.09), mean primary lesion size was 0.37 ± 1.52 cc with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 targeted cores per lesion on visual estimation and image fusion combined, and a mean of 48.7 ± 12.3 transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy cores. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies detected 97 clinically significant prostate cancers (48.5%) and 85 insignificant cancers (42.5%). Overall multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies detected 81 clinically significant prostate cancers (40.5%) and 63 insignificant cancers (31.5%). In the 18 cases (9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 34 cases (17%) on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy but not on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and approximately half was present in nontargeted areas. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found on visual estimation and image fusion in 53 (31.3%) and 48 (28.4%) of the 169 patients (McNemar test p = 0.5322). Visual estimation missed 23 clinically significant prostate cancers (13.6%) detected by image fusion. Image fusion missed 18 clinically significant prostate cancers (10.8%) detected by visual estimation.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies are accurate for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and reducing the over diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximize detection visual estimation as well as image fusion targeted biopsies are required.

The natural history of prostate cancer on MRI: lessons from an active surveillance cohort

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is being used increasingly in the setting of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. We investigated changes in the mpMRI appearance of lesions on AS, to show the variability of volume measurements in visible lesions and assess change in lesion size according to grade.

METHODS

We retrospectively retrieved 86 men on AS (NICE guidelines) with more than one mpMRI (the first before 2013). Two radiologists, in consensus, were blinded to patient demographics and date of scan. The scans were randomly reported to reduce any bias. For visible lesions, we measured volume by planimetry on the sequence best showing the most conspicuous (index) tumour and attributed a 5-point Likert score.

RESULTS

43/86 men did not have a visible lesion on the initial mpMRI (≤2/5). Of these, 5/43 had developed a lesion scoring ≥3/5 at a median of 3.6 years of follow up. 40/86 had a lesion scoring ≥3/5 on two or more scans. There was a significant increase in volume over 3.6 years by a median of 10% (p < 0.01)-by a median of 6% for Gleason 3+3 and 18% for 3+4 (p = 0.058). Thirty-five men had a visible lesion on two scans separated by <2 years; of these, 21/35 showed a 78% median increase in tumour size between the two scans and 11/35 showed an apparent 25% median decrease in lesion size.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 17% of men with no visible lesion developed a visible lesion at a median follow up of 3.6 years. It is possible to show significant growth in patients with a visible lesion, but variability in volume measurements between scans means that it is difficult to reliably detect increases of this order. This variability may inform the design of mpMRI protocols in AS and the time between follow up scans.

Prostate cancer diagnostic pathway: Is a one-stop cognitive MRI targeted biopsy service a realistic goal in everyday practice? A pilot cohort in a tertiary referral centre in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of a novel multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and cognitive fusion transperineal targeted biopsy (MRTB) led prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic service with regard to cancer detection and reducing time to diagnosis and treatment.

DESIGN

Consecutive men being investigated for possible PCa under the UK 2-week wait guidelines.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre for PCa in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Men referred with a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination between February 2015 and March 2016 under the UK 2-week rule guideline.

INTERVENTIONS

An mpMRI was performed prior to patients attending clinic, on the same day. If required, MRTB was offered. Results were available within 48 hours and discussed at a specialist multidisciplinary team meeting. Patients returned for counselling within 7 days PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures in this regard included the time to diagnosis and treatment of patients referred with a suspicion of PCa. Quality control outcome measures included clinically significant and total cancer detection rates.

RESULTS

112 men were referred to the service. 111 (99.1%) underwent mpMRI. Median PSA was 9.4 ng/mL (IQR 5.6-21.0). 87 patients had a target on mpMRI with 25 scoring Likert 3/5 for likelihood of disease, 26 4/5 and 36 5/5.57 (51%) patients received a local anaesthetic, Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (MRTB). Cancer was detected in 45 (79%). 43 (96%) had University College London definition 2 disease or greater. The times to diagnosis and treatment were a median of 8 and 20 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This approach greatly reduces the time to diagnosis and treatment. Detection rates of significant cancer are high. Similar services may be valuable to patients with a potential diagnosis of PCa.

Weakly-supervised convolutional neural networks for multimodal image registration

One of the fundamental challenges in supervised learning for multimodal image registration is the lack of ground-truth for voxel-level spatial correspondence. This work describes a method to infer voxel-level transformation from higher-level correspondence information contained in anatomical labels. We argue that such labels are more reliable and practical to obtain for reference sets of image pairs than voxel-level correspondence. Typical anatomical labels of interest may include solid organs, vessels, ducts, structure boundaries and other subject-specific ad hoc landmarks. The proposed end-to-end convolutional neural network approach aims to predict displacement fields to align multiple labelled corresponding structures for individual image pairs during the training, while only unlabelled image pairs are used as the network input for inference. We highlight the versatility of the proposed strategy, for training, utilising diverse types of anatomical labels, which need not to be identifiable over all training image pairs. At inference, the resulting 3D deformable image registration algorithm runs in real-time and is fully-automated without requiring any anatomical labels or initialisation. Several network architecture variants are compared for registering T2-weighted magnetic resonance images and 3D transrectal ultrasound images from prostate cancer patients. A median target registration error of 3.6 mm on landmark centroids and a median Dice of 0.87 on prostate glands are achieved from cross-validation experiments, in which 108 pairs of multimodal images from 76 patients were tested with high-quality anatomical labels.

MRI in active surveillance: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

Recent technological advancements and the introduction of modern anatomical and functional sequences have led to a growing role for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection, risk assessment and monitoring of early prostate cancer. This includes men who have been diagnosed with lower-risk prostate cancer and are looking at the option of active surveillance (AS). The purpose of this paper is to review the recent evidence supporting the use of mpMRI at different time points in AS, as well as to discuss some of its potential pitfalls.

METHODS

A combination of electronic and manual searching methods were used to identify recent, important papers investigating the role of mpMRI in AS.

RESULTS

The high negative predictive value of mpMRI can be exploited for the selection of AS candidates. In addition, mpMRI can be efficiently used to detect higher risk disease in patients already on surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Although there is an ongoing debate regarding the precise nature of its optimal implementation, mpMRI is a promising risk stratification tool and should be considered for men on AS.

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting

OBJECTIVES

To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.

A Multicentre Study of 5-year Outcomes Following Focal Therapy in Treating Clinically Significant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

Background

Clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is currently treated using whole-gland therapy. This approach is effective but can have urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects.

Objective

To report on 5-yr PCa control following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy to treat individual areas of cancer within the prostate.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a prospective study of 625 consecutive patients with nonmetastatic clinically significant PCa undergoing focal HIFU therapy (Sonablate) in secondary care centres between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015. A minimum of 6-mo follow-up was available for599 patients. Intermediate- or high-risk PCa was found in 505 patients (84%).

Intervention

Disease was localised using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) combined with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. Areas of significant disease were treated. Follow-up included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, mpMRI, and biopsies.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary endpoint, failure-free survival (FFS), was defined as freedom from radical or systemic therapy, metastases, and cancer-specific mortality.

Results and limitations

The median follow-up was 56 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 35–70). The median age was 65 yr (IQR 61–71) and median preoperative PSA was 7.2 ng/ml (IQR 5.2–10.0). FFS was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98–100%) at 1 yr, 92% (95% CI 90–95%) at 3 yr, and 88% (95% 85–91%) at 5 yr. For the whole patient cohort, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival at 5 yr was 98% (95% CI 97–99%), 100%, and 99% (95% CI 97–100%), respectively. Among patients who returned validated questionnaires, 241/247 (98%) achieved complete pad-free urinary continence and none required more than 1 pad/d. Limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up.

Conclusions

Focal therapy for select patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer is effective in the medium term and has a low probability of side effects.

Patient summary

In this multicentre study of 625 patients undergoing focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), failure-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 88%, 98%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. Urinary incontinence (any pad use) was 2%. Focal HIFU therapy for patients with clinically significant prostate cancer that has not spread has a low probability of side effects and is effective at 5 yr.

Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches

OBJECTIVES

Recent advances have led to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone or with fusion to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Our group sought to develop consensus recommendations regarding MRI-guided prostate biopsy based on currently available literature and expert opinion.

METHODS

The published literature on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy was reviewed using standard search terms and synthesized and analyzed by four different subgroups from among the authors. The literature was grouped into four categories-MRI-guided biopsy platforms, robotic MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, template mapping biopsy and transrectal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. Consensus recommendations were developed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria.

RESULTS

There is limited high level evidence available on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy. MRI guidance with or without TRUS fusion can lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, help identify high-risk (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) cancers that might have been missed on standard TRUS biopsy and identify cancers in the anterior prostate. There is no apparent significant difference between MRI biopsy platforms. Template mapping biopsy is perhaps the most accurate method of assessing volume and grade of tumor but is accompanied by higher incidence of side effects compared to TRUS biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies are feasible and better than traditional ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting high-risk prostate cancer and anterior lesions. Judicious use of MRI-guided biopsy could enhance diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while limiting diagnosis of insignificant cancer.

Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the additional value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies to confirmatory systematic biopsies in identifying high-grade prostate cancer in men with low-risk disease on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy, as active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer is recommended for men with Gleason 3 + 3 on standard TRUS-guided biopsy. Confirmatory assessment can include repeat standard TRUS-guided biopsy, and/or MRI with targeted biopsy when indicated.

METHODS

A systematic review of the Embase, Medline, Web-of-science, Google scholar, and Cochrane library was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. Studies reporting men with Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer who had chosen AS based on transrectal systematic biopsy findings and had undergone MRI with systematic ± targeted biopsy at confirmatory assessment were included. The primary outcome was detection of any Gleason pattern ≥4.

RESULTS

Included reports (six) of men on AS (n = 1 159) showed cancer upgrading (Gleason ≥3 + 4) in 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22-34%) using a combined approach of MRI-targeted biopsies and confirmatory systematic biopsies. MRI-targeted biopsies alone would have missed cancer upgrading in 10% (95% CI 8-14%) and standard biopsies alone would have missed cancer upgrading in 7% (95% CI 5-10%). No pathway was more favourable than the other (relative risk [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.06). In all, 35% (95% CI 27-43%) of men with a positive MRI were upgraded, compared to 12% (95% CI 8-18%) of men with a negative MRI being upgraded (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.76-4.38).

CONCLUSIONS

A pre-biopsy MRI should be performed before confirmatory systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in men on AS, together with MRI-targeted biopsies when indicated. A combined approach maximises cancer detection, although other factors within multivariate risk prediction can be used to aid the decision to biopsy in these men.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Technical Note: Error metrics for estimating the accuracy of needle/instrument placement during transperineal magnetic resonance/ultrasound-guided prostate interventions

PURPOSE

Image-guided systems that fuse magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound (US) images for performing targeted prostate needle biopsy and minimally invasive treatments for prostate cancer are of increasing clinical interest. To date, a wide range of different accuracy estimation procedures and error metrics have been reported, which makes comparing the performance of different systems difficult.

METHODS

A set of nine measures are presented to assess the accuracy of MRI-US image registration, needle positioning, needle guidance, and overall system error, with the aim of providing a methodology for estimating the accuracy of instrument placement using a MR/US-guided transperineal approach.

RESULTS

Using the SmartTarget fusion system, an MRI-US image alignment error was determined to be 2.0 ± 1.0 mm (mean ± SD), and an overall system instrument targeting error of 3.0 ± 1.2 mm. Three needle deployments for each target phantom lesion was found to result in a 100% lesion hit rate and a median predicted cancer core length of 5.2 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a comprehensive, unbiased validation assessment for MR/US guided systems can provide useful information on system performance for quality assurance and system comparison. Furthermore, such an analysis can be helpful in identifying relationships between these errors, providing insight into the technical behavior of these systems.