Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies

Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The second version of the PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) was introduced in 2015 to standardize the interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Recently low cancer detection rates were reported for PI-RADS version 2 category 4 lesions. Therefore the aim of the study was to evaluate the cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 in a large prospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 704 consecutive men with primary or prior negative biopsies who underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsy and 10-core systematic prostate biopsy between September 2015 and May 2017. All lesions were rated according to PI-RADS version 2 and lesions with PI-RADS version 2 category 3 or greater were biopsied. An ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) score of 2 or greater (ie Gleason 3 + 4 or greater) was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The overall cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 categories 3, 4 and 5 was 39%, 72% and 91% for all prostate cancer, and 23%, 49% and 77% for all clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. If only targeted biopsy had been performed, 59 clinically significant tumors (16%) would have been missed. The PI-RADS version 2 score was significantly associated with the presence of prostate cancer (p <0.001), the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (p <0.001) and the ISUP grade (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PI-RADS version 2 is significantly associated with the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The cancer detection rate of PI-RADS version 2 category 4 lesions was considerably higher than previously reported. When performing targeted biopsy, the combination with systematic biopsy still provides the highest detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate

OBJECTIVE

To examine the performance of a primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB), and in combination with an added systematic biopsy (SB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analysis of 318 consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicious multiparametric MRI (mpMRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) undergoing transrectal TB and 10-core SB between January 2012 and December 2016. The indication for performing mpMRI was based on clinical parameters and decided by the treating urologist before admission. TB was performed with a sensor-based MRI/US fusion-guided platform. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7 (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade [ISUP] grade 3) or maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm.

RESULTS

A median (interquartile range) of 14 (13-14) biopsies per case were taken. The overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was 77% (245/318). The TB alone detected 67% of prostate cancers and the SB alone detected 70%. The PI-RADS dependent CDR for the combination of TB/SB were 38% (21/55), 78% (120/154) and 95% (104/109) for PI-RADS scores of 3/4/5, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by the combination of TB and SB in 195 men (61%) and by TB alone in 163 cases (51%). The number of missed or underestimated prostate cancers with a Gleason score ≥8 for TB alone was 31 (10%, P < 0.001) and 21 (7%, P < 0.001) for SB alone in comparison with the results of the combination of TB and SB. The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was comparable for the combination of TB and SB and TB alone (50/318, 16% vs 50/318, 16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-biopsy mpMRI is of incremental value in increasing the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion of prostate cancer. Combining TB with SB further improved the diagnostic accuracy without increasing the rate of insignificant prostate cancer.

The role of real-time elastography-targeted biopsy in the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of real-time elastography (RTE)-targeted biopsy in the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 31, 2017 and used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool to assess the quality of the identified studies. We applied the relative sensitivity value to assess the diagnostic accuracy of RTE-targeted biopsy using the 10-core systematic biopsy as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Seven studies comprising 5 cohorts and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Of the 5 cohorts that encompassed 698 participants, we found that RTE-targeted biopsy did not outperform systematic biopsy in either overall PCa detection (69.5% vs 80.5%, relative sensitivity 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.06) or for the initial biopsy (56.8% vs 64.0%, relative sensitivity 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.11). For the core-by-core analysis, more positive cores were detected by RTE-targeted biopsy than systematic biopsy (21% vs 11%, relative sensitivity 2.17, 95% CI 1.61-2.95). The 2 RCTs showed a favorable trend toward greater PCa detection when a combination of systematic biopsies and RTE-targeted biopsies was used than when systematic biopsy alone was used (45.5% vs 39.5%, risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.98-1.43).

CONCLUSION

Currently, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that RTE-targeted biopsy can outperform systematic biopsy, but the combination of systematic and RTE-targeted biopsy may be a promising approach for improving PCa detection.

Prostate cancer screening-when to start and how to screen?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduces prostate cancer (PCa) mortality; however such screening may lead to harm in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Therefore, upfront shared decision making involving a discussion about pros and cons between a physician and a patient is crucial. Total PSA remains the most commonly used screening tool and is a strong predictor of future life-threatening PCa. Currently there is no strong consensus on the age at which to start PSA screening. Most guidelines recommend PSA screening to start no later than at age 55 and involve well-informed men in good health and a life expectancy of at least 10–15 years. Some suggest to start screening in early midlife for men with familial predisposition and men of African-American descent. Others suggest starting conversations at age 45 for all men. Re-screening intervals can be risk-stratified as guided by the man’s age, general health and PSA-value; longer intervals for those at lower risk and shorter intervals for those at higher risk. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies can be reduced using reflex tests. Magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-diagnostic setting holds promise in pilot studies and large-scale prospective studies are ongoing.

A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

PSA screening has been rehabilitated. PSA is not specific and can be elevated by benign reasons. Additionally, a subgroup of patients with prostate hyperplasia may harbor prostate cancer (PCa). During monitoring, the clinician aims to detect significant tumors in time, submitting patients to minimal psychological and physical burden, especially in men with high serum PSA and repeat biopsies. We aimed to determine long-term outcomes with respect to ANNA/C-TRUS ability to detect PCa with six targeted biopsies.

METHODS

A subset of 71 patients were enrolled. During monitoring, they were subjected to primary, secondary, or even multiple prostate biopsies when needed. Protocol monitoring included PSA measurements, digital rectal examination (DRE) and imaging.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 12 years. Forty-one patients had a history of negative systematic random biopsies (1-3 sessions). Their age ranges 62-85 years, PSA 0.5-47.3 ng/ml, and the median prostate volume 11-255 cc. During monitoring, 15 patients were diagnosed with PCa. Only two harbored aggressive tumors. The median time to diagnosis was 6 years. All PCa patients are free from biochemical relapse. From the remaining 56 patients, 11 did not have any biopsies, 12 had one, 13 had two, and 20 had three or more biopsy sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

ANNA/C-TRUS is a useful method monitoring patients with a risk of PCa. 50-75% of the usually performed biopsy cores could be spared and, after 12 years, 97% of the patients were either without evidence of a PCa or were diagnosed with a good prognosis tumor.

Evaluation of MRI/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches

Purpose

To evaluate transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy to detect prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and Methods

154 men underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy between July 2012 and October 2016. 79/154 patients were biopsied with a TR approach and 75/154 with a TP approach. MRI was retrospectively analyzed according to PI-RADS version 2. PI-RADS scores were compared with histopathological results. Descriptive statistics, accuracy, and negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Histopathological results of first, second, and third MRI targeted biopsy cores were compared to evaluate the impact of one verus multiple targeted cores.

Results

Detection rates of PCa were 39% for TR biopsy and 75% for TP biopsy. Sensitivity/specificity for tumor detection with PI-RADS ≥ 4 were 81/69% for TR biopsy and 86/84% for TP biopsy. In 31% for TR biopsy and 19% for TP biopsy, PCa was found in the second or third MRI targeted biopsy core only.

Conclusion

MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy may be conducted with the TR as well as the TP approach with high accuracy, giving more flexibility for diagnosis and the option for focal treatment of PCa.

Multiparametric dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to improve the accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for prostate cancer (PCa) localization by means of a multiparametric approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen different parameters related to either perfusion or dispersion were extracted pixel-by-pixel from 45 DCE-US recordings in 19 patients referred for radical prostatectomy. Multiparametric maps were retrospectively produced using a Gaussian mixture model algorithm. These were subsequently evaluated on their pixel-wise performance in classifying 43 benign and 42 malignant histopathologically confirmed regions of interest, using a prostate-based leave-one-out procedure.

RESULTS

The combination of the spatiotemporal correlation (r), mean transit time (μ), curve skewness (κ), and peak time (PT) yielded an accuracy of 81% ± 11%, which was higher than the best performing single parameters: r (73%), μ (72%), and wash-in time (72%). The negative predictive value increased to 83% ± 16% from 70%, 69% and 67%, respectively. Pixel inclusion based on the confidence level boosted these measures to 90% with half of the pixels excluded, but without disregarding any prostate or region.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest multiparametric DCE-US analysis might be a useful diagnostic tool for PCa, possibly supporting future targeting of biopsies or therapy. Application in other types of cancer can also be foreseen.

KEY POINTS

• DCE-US can be used to extract both perfusion and dispersion-related parameters. • Multiparametric DCE-US performs better in detecting PCa than single-parametric DCE-US. • Multiparametric DCE-US might become a useful tool for PCa localization.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the guidelines national committee CCAFU was to propose updated french guidelines for localized and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A Medline search was achieved between 2013 and 2016, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of PCa, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence.

RESULTS

Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of > 74Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated french guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Magnetic resonance imaging detection of prostate cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy

Use of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic prostate biopsy has poor diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. Recently multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and MR/US fusion biopsy has been gaining popularity for men who have previously undergone a negative biopsy. We performed PubMed® and Web of Science® searches to identify studies on this subject, particularly focusing on studies consisting of patients who have had at least one previously negative biopsy. Across the literature, when a suspicious lesion is found on mpMRI, MR/US fusion biopsy has consistently demonstrated higher detection rate for any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared to the traditional repeat systematic biopsy (SB) approach. Furthermore, anteriorly located tumors are frequently identified using MR targeted biopsy (TB), suggesting that an MR guided approach allows for increased accuracy for detecting tumors commonly missed by systematic biopsies. We conclude that men with a prior negative biopsy and continued suspicion of PCa should strongly be encouraged to get a prostate mpMRI prior to a repeat biopsy.

Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

Many studies have established the high diagnostic accuracy of shear wave elastography (SWE) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa); however, its utility remains a subject of debate. This meta-analysis sought to appraise the overall accuracy of SWE for the detection of PCa. A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) databases was conducted. In all of the included studies, the diagnostic accuracy of SWE was compared with that of histopathology, which was used as a standard. Data were pooled, and the sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated to estimate the accuracy of SWE. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PCa by SWE were 0.844 (95% confidence interval: 0.696–0.927) and 0.860 (0.792–0.908), respectively. The AUC was 0.91 (0.89–0.94), the PLR was 6.017 (3.674–9.853), and the NLR was 0.182 (0.085–0.389). The DOR was 33.069 (10.222–106.982). Thus, SWE exhibited high accuracy for the detection of PCa using histopathology as a diagnostic standard. Moreover, SWE may reduce the number of core biopsies needed.

Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVES

To measure benign and malignant prostate tissue stiffness using shear-wave elastography (SWE).

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients underwent transrectal SWE in the axial and sagittal planes before prostatectomy. After reviewing prostatectomy specimens, two radiologists measured stiffness in regions corresponding to cancers, lateral and median benign peripheral zone (PZ) and benign transition zone (TZ).

RESULTS

Cancers were stiffer than benign PZ and TZ. All tissue classes were stiffer on sagittal than on axial imaging, in TZ than in PZ, and in median PZ than in lateral PZ. At multivariate analysis, the nature of tissue (benign or malignant; P < 0.00001), the imaging plane (axial or sagittal; P < 0.00001) and the location within the prostate (TZ, median PZ or lateral PZ; P = 0.0065) significantly and independently influenced tissue stiffness. On axial images, the thresholds maximising the Youden index in TZ, lateral PZ and median PZ were respectively 62 kPa, 33 kPa and 49 kPa. On sagittal images, the thresholds were 76 kPa, 50 kPa and 72 kPa, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SWE can distinguish prostate malignant and benign tissues. Tissue stiffness is influenced by the imaging plane and the location within the gland.

KEY POINTS

• Prostate cancers were stiffer than the benign peripheral zone • All tissue classes were stiffer on sagittal than on axial imaging • All tissue classes were stiffer in the transition zone than in the peripheral zone • All tissue classes were stiffer in the median than in the lateral peripheral zone • Taking into account imaging plane and zonal anatomy can improve cancer detection.

Utility of Ultrasound in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-up of Prostate Cancer: State of the Art

Prostate cancer screening currently consists of serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination, followed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for diagnostic confirmation. Although the current paradigm of prostate cancer screening has led to a decrease in advanced disease and cancer-related mortality, these techniques have limitations in terms of sensitivity and specificity, resulting in missed cancers that are clinically significant and the overdetection of clinically insignificant cancers. New imaging techniques and technologies are required to improve the detection of prostate cancer. This article summarizes the use of novel ultrasound techniques and technologies in the detection, biopsy, and treatment of prostate cancer.

The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients

BACKGROUND

The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these "blind" systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ≥7) compared between the three biopsy protocols.

DISCUSSION

This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.

Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy in Chinese population: Updated nomograms

INTRODUCTION

To assess the risk factors of Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) and update the nomogram for the prediction of Gleason sum upgrading.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 237 Chinese prostate adenocarcinoma patients who underwent 10-core prostate biopsy and subsequently received RP in Huashan Hospital from February 2011 to May 2015. The main outcome of our study was Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and RP pathology. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to explore the potential predictors, and ultimately to build the nomograms. The prediction model was further evaluated for its ability to predict significant upgrading in patients with biopsy Gleason sum<8.

RESULTS

In the main cohort of all the patients, Gleason sum upgrading was observed in 62 (26.16%) patients. The pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, biopsy Gleason sum, and digital rectal examination were used in building the nomogram, which was validated internally with a bootstrap-corrected concordance index of 0.787. In the sub-cohort of 115 patients with standardized biopsy details, Gleason sum upgrading was observed in 31 (26.96%) patients. The pre-operative PSA level, biopsy Gleason sum, and number of positive cores were used in the nomogram, which was also validated internally with a bootstrap-corrected concordance index of 0.833. These two nomograms both demonstrated satisfactory statistical performance for predicting significant upgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

Updated nomograms to predict Gleason sum upgrading in Chinese population between biopsy and RP were developed, demonstrating good statistical performance upon internal validation.

Ultrasound Elastography: Review of Techniques and Clinical Applications

Elastography-based imaging techniques have received substantial attention in recent years for non-invasive assessment of tissue mechanical properties. These techniques take advantage of changed soft tissue elasticity in various pathologies to yield qualitative and quantitative information that can be used for diagnostic purposes. Measurements are acquired in specialized imaging modes that can detect tissue stiffness in response to an applied mechanical force (compression or shear wave). Ultrasound-based methods are of particular interest due to its many inherent advantages, such as wide availability including at the bedside and relatively low cost. Several ultrasound elastography techniques using different excitation methods have been developed. In general, these can be classified into strain imaging methods that use internal or external compression stimuli, and shear wave imaging that use ultrasound-generated traveling shear wave stimuli. While ultrasound elastography has shown promising results for non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis, new applications in breast, thyroid, prostate, kidney and lymph node imaging are emerging. Here, we review the basic principles, foundation physics, and limitations of ultrasound elastography and summarize its current clinical use and ongoing developments in various clinical applications.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Number and Spatial Distribution of Cores for Better Index Tumor Detection and Characterization

PURPOSE

We evaluated the minimum core number for better index tumor detection to determine the best core site as well as biopsy Gleason score heterogeneity in the same index lesion. The aim was to optimize the highest Gleason score detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 327 patients with negative digital rectal examination underwent magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy for elevated/rising prostate specific antigen and/or 1 or more detectable lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging after a previous negative standard biopsy. Depending on the diameter of each index lesion (8 or less, or greater than 8 mm) 4 or 6 cores, respectively, were taken according to a well determined sequence.

RESULTS

Of the patients 166 (50.7%) had prostate cancer, including 79 (47.6%) with an 8 mm or less index lesion and 87 (52.4%) with a greater than 8 mm index lesion. Of patients with an index tumor 8 mm or less 7 (8.9%) had 1, 31 (39.2%) had 2, 27 (34.2%) had 3 and 14 (17.7%) had 4 positive cores. Similarly, of patients with a lesion greater than 8 mm 8 (9.2%) had 1, 30 (34.5%) had 2, 13 (14.9%) had 3, 14 (16.1%) had 4, 12 (13.8%) had 5 and 10 (11.5%) had 6 positive cores. The major prevalence of positive cores was observed in the center of the target. Gleason score heterogeneity was found in 12.6% of those with an 8 mm or less target vs 26.4% with a target greater than 8 mm. In the center of the target there was a slight prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 or greater, or a lesser pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Approaching magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy with a single core might be inadequate. Rather, taking 2 cores in the center of the index lesion may provide more accurate cancer detection and optimize the chances of finding the highest Gleason pattern.

WFUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Ultrasound Elastography: Part 5. Prostate

The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB) has produced guidelines for the use of elastography techniques, including basic science, breast, liver and thyroid elastography. Here we present elastography in prostate diseases. For each available technique, procedure, reproducibility, results and limitations are analyzed and recommendations are given. Finally, recommendations are given based on the level of evidence of the published literature and on the WFUMB expert group's consensus. This document has a clinical perspective and is aimed at assessing the usefulness of elastography in the management of prostate diseases.

Accuracy of Elastic Fusion of Prostate Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images under Routine Conditions: A Prospective Multi-Operator Study

Purpose

To evaluate in unselected patients imaged under routine conditions the co-registration accuracy of elastic fusion between magnetic resonance (MR) and ultrasound (US) images obtained by the Koelis Urostation^™.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively included 15 consecutive patients referred for placement of intraprostatic fiducials before radiotherapy and who gave written informed consent by signing the Institutional Review Board-approved forms. Three fiducials were placed in the prostate under US guidance in standardized positions (right apex, left mid-gland, right base) using the Koelis Urostation^™. Patients then underwent prostate MR imaging. Four operators outlined the prostate on MR and US images and an elastic fusion was retrospectively performed. Fiducials were used to measure the overall target registration error (TRE_3D), the error along the antero-posterior (TRE_AP), right-left (TRE_RL) and head-feet (TRE_HF) directions, and within the plane orthogonal to the virtual biopsy track (TRE_2D).

Results

Median TRE_3D and TRE_2D were 3.8–5.6 mm, and 2.5–3.6 mm, respectively. TRE_3D was significantly influenced by the operator (p = 0.013), fiducial location (p = 0.001) and 3D axis orientation (p<0.0001). The worst results were obtained by the least experienced operator. TRE_3D was smaller in mid-gland and base than in apex (average difference: -1.21 mm (95% confidence interval (95%CI): -2.03; -0.4) and -1.56 mm (95%CI: -2.44; -0.69) respectively). TRE_AP and TRE_HF were larger than TRE_RL (average difference: +1.29 mm (95%CI: +0.87; +1.71) and +0.59 mm (95%CI: +0.1; +0.95) respectively).

Conclusions

Registration error values were reasonable for clinical practice. The co-registration accuracy was significantly influenced by the operator’s experience, and significantly poorer in the antero-posterior direction and at the apex.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Robot-Guided, Software Based Transperineal MRI/TRUS Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate in a High Risk Population of Previously Biopsy Negative Men

Objective. In this study, we compared prostate cancer detection rates between MRI-TRUS fusion targeted and systematic biopsies using a robot-guided, software based transperineal approach. Methods and Patients. 52 patients received a MRIT/TRUS fusion followed by a systematic volume adapted biopsy using the same robot-guided transperineal approach. The primary outcome was the detection rate of clinically significant disease (Gleason grade ≥ 4). Secondary outcomes were detection rate of all cancers, sampling efficiency and utility, and serious adverse event rate. Patients received no antibiotic prophylaxis. Results. From 52 patients, 519 targeted biopsies from 135 lesions and 1561 random biopsies were generated (total n = 2080). Overall detection rate of clinically significant PCa was 44.2% (23/52) and 50.0% (26/52) for target and random biopsy, respectively. Sampling efficiency as the median number of cores needed to detect clinically significant prostate cancer was 9 for target (IQR: 6–14.0) and 32 (IQR: 24–32) for random biopsy. The utility as the number of additionally detected clinically significant PCa cases by either strategy was 0% (0/52) for target and 3.9% (2/52) for random biopsy. Conclusions. MRI/TRUS fusion based target biopsy did not show an advantage in the overall detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Prostate MRI - an update for the referring urologist

INTRODUCTION

Prostate MRI is a new and important tool which has a role in prostate cancer guidelines worldwide. The amount of articles published and studies currently taking place on the subject requires urologists to understand how the examination is performed and its possible applications. This article explains prostate MRI and standardized reporting schemes, as well as its applications according to patients' staging and history.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The use of prostate MRI prior to biopsy, MRI-guided biopsy and its use in active surveillance, surgery staging and planning, as well as in cases with biochemical recurrence are discussed.

RESULTS

The application of prostate MRI are not limited to initial diagnosis, but also has a developing role in biopsy and planning further treatment. Recently, its diagnostic applications have been included in EAU prostate cancer guidelines and new applications are in development.

CONCLUSIONS

Practicing urologists are seeing an emerging role of MRI in prostate cancer. Its current and future applications may have an impact on patient care, which mandates healthcare professionals to be vigilant about the method's new developments.

Primary Gleason pattern upgrading in contemporary patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer: implications for future biomarkers and imaging modalities

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively assess the rate of high-grade primary Gleason upgrading (HGPGU) to primary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 in a contemporary cohort of patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer including those who fulfilled Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, and to develop a tool for HGPGU prediction. HGPGU is a contraindication in most active surveillance (AS) and focal therapy protocols.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 10 616 patients with localised prostate cancer were treated at a high-volume European tertiary care centre from 2010 to 2015 with radical prostatectomy. Analyses were restricted to 1 819 patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer (17.1%) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of <10.0 ng/mL, cT1c-cT2a and Gleason score ≤6, and were repeated within 772 of the men (7.3%) who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria for AS (PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, T1c-T2, Gleason score ≤6, PSA density (PSAD) of <0.2 ng/mL² , ≤2 positive cores). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted, testing predictors of HGPGU. The final logistic regression model was based on the most informative variables.

RESULTS

There was HGPGU in 88 (4.8%) patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer and in 32 (4.1%) of the subgroup who were PRIAS eligible. Multivariable analysis predicting HGPGU for the patients with D'Amico low-risk yielded three independent predictors: age, PSAD, and clinical tumour stage (P = 0.008, P = 0.005 and P = 0.021, respectively). Within the same patients, the model using all vs the most informative variables resulted in area under the curves (AUCs) of 69.2% and 68.3%, respectively. Multivariable analysis of those who were PRIAS eligible, yielded age and number of positive cores as independent predictors of HGPGU (P = 0.002 and P = 0.049, respectively; AUC 64.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The low accuracy (invariably <70%) for HGPGU prediction in both patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer and PRIAS eligibility indicates that these variables have poor predictive ability in contemporary patients. Despite HGPGU being a rare phenomenon, it may have life threatening implications and consequently alternatives such as biomarkers, genetic markers, or imaging modalities at re-biopsy are needed.

Review of ultrasound image guidance in external beam radiotherapy part II: intra-fraction motion management and novel applications

Imaging has become an essential tool in modern radiotherapy (RT), being used to plan dose delivery prior to treatment and verify target position before and during treatment. Ultrasound (US) imaging is cost-effective in providing excellent contrast at high resolution for depicting soft tissue targets apart from those shielded by the lungs or cranium. As a result, it is increasingly used in RT setup verification for the measurement of inter-fraction motion, the subject of Part I of this review (Fontanarosa et al 2015 Phys. Med. Biol. 60 R77-114). The combination of rapid imaging and zero ionising radiation dose makes US highly suitable for estimating intra-fraction motion. The current paper (Part II of the review) covers this topic. The basic technology for US motion estimation, and its current clinical application to the prostate, is described here, along with recent developments in robust motion-estimation algorithms, and three dimensional (3D) imaging. Together, these are likely to drive an increase in the number of future clinical studies and the range of cancer sites in which US motion management is applied. Also reviewed are selections of existing and proposed novel applications of US imaging to RT. These are driven by exciting developments in structural, functional and molecular US imaging and analytical techniques such as backscatter tissue analysis, elastography, photoacoustography, contrast-specific imaging, dynamic contrast analysis, microvascular and super-resolution imaging, and targeted microbubbles. Such techniques show promise for predicting and measuring the outcome of RT, quantifying normal tissue toxicity, improving tumour definition and defining a biological target volume that describes radiation sensitive regions of the tumour. US offers easy, low cost and efficient integration of these techniques into the RT workflow. US contrast technology also has potential to be used actively to assist RT by manipulating the tumour cell environment and by improving the delivery of radiosensitising agents. Finally, US imaging offers various ways to measure dose in 3D. If technical problems can be overcome, these hold potential for wide-dissemination of cost-effective pre-treatment dose verification and in vivo dose monitoring methods. It is concluded that US imaging could eventually contribute to all aspects of the RT workflow.

Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required?

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the feasibility of performing less than two core biopsies per MRI-lesion when performing targeted MR-guided in-bore prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Retrospectively evaluated were 1545 biopsy cores of 774 intraprostatic lesions (two cores per lesion) in 290 patients (66 ± 7.8 years; median PSA 8.2 ng/ml) regarding prostate cancer (PCa) detection, Gleason score, and tumor infiltration of the first (FBC) compared to the second biopsy core (SBC). Biopsies were acquired under in-bore MR-guidance.

RESULTS

For the biopsy cores, 491 were PCa positive, 239 of 774 (31 %) were FBC and 252 of 771 (33 %) were SBC (p = 0.4). Patient PCa detection rate based on the FBC vs. SBC were 46 % vs. 48 % (p = 0.6). For clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7) the detection rate was 18 % for both, FBC and SBC (p = 0.9). Six hundred and eighty-seven SBC (89 %) showed no histologic difference. On the lesion level, 40 SBC detected PCa with negative FBC (7.5 %). Twenty SBC showed a Gleason upgrade from 3 + 3 = 6 to ≥3 + 4 = 7 (2.6 %) and 4 to ≥4 + 3 = 7 (0.5 %).

CONCLUSION

The benefit of a second targeted biopsy core per suspicious MRI-lesion is likely minor, especially regarding PCa detection rate and significant Gleason upgrading. Therefore, a further reduction of biopsy cores is reasonable when performing a targeted MR-guided in-bore prostate biopsy.

KEY POINTS

• Higher PI-RADS overall score (IV-V) correlated well with PCa detection rate • In more than 80 % SBC was concordant regarding overall PCa detection • In almost 90 % there was no Gleason upgrading by the SBC • Only 2/54 (3.7 %) csPCa was missed when the SBC was omitted • For IB-GB a further reduction of biopsy cores is reasonable.

Quantitative Analysis of Prostate Multiparametric MR Images for Detection of Aggressive Prostate Cancer in the Peripheral Zone: A Multiple Imager Study

Purpose To assess the intermanufacturer variability of quantitative models in discriminating cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 among peripheral zone (PZ) lesions seen at 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods An institutional review board-approved prospective database of 257 patients who gave written consent and underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging before prostatectomy was retrospectively reviewed. It contained outlined lesions found to be suspicious for malignancy by two independent radiologists and classified as malignant or benign after correlation with prostatectomy whole-mount specimens. One hundred six patients who underwent imaging with 3-T MR systems from two manufacturers were selected (data set A, n = 72; data set B, n = 34). Eleven parameters were calculated in PZ lesions: normalized T2-weighted signal intensity, skewness and kurtosis of T2-weighted signal intensity, T2 value, wash-in rate, washout rate, time to peak (TTP), mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), 10th percentile of the ADC, and skewness and kurtosis of the histogram of the ADC values. Parameters were selected on the basis of their specificity for a sensitivity of 0.95 in diagnosing cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the models was calculated. Results The model of the 10th percentile of the ADC with TTP yielded the highest AUC in both data sets. In data set A, the AUC was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 0.95) or 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.94) when it was trained in data set A or B, respectively. In data set B, the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.94) or 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.95) when it was trained in data set A or B, respectively. No third variable added significantly independent information in any data set. Conclusion The model of the 10th percentile of the ADC with TTP yielded accurate results in discriminating cancers with a Gleason score of at least 7 among PZ lesions at 3 T in data from two manufacturers. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection

INTRODUCTION

To overcome the limitations regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies in prostate cancer (PCa) detection, there is a focus on new imaging technologies. The Navigo™ system (UC-care, Israel) uses regular TRUS images and electrospatial monitoring to generate a 3D model of the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the Navigo™ system and conventional TRUS, in patients without a history of PCa.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study by collecting data from all patients who underwent 12-core prostate biopsies from lateral peripheral zones between September 2013 and February 2015 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands).

RESULTS

A total of 325 patients met our inclusion criteria. 77.8 % of biopsy sessions were performed using the Navigo™ system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo™ system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo™ system for taking prostate biopsies proved not to be associated with the presence of PCa at biopsy, likewise for clinically significant PCa and for both subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the study include its retrospective design, the limited number of patients in the conventional TRUS group, the statistically significant different number of biopsy sessions and the ones performed by an advanced physician in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.

Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer

Abstract

Most prostate cancers (PC) are currently found on the basis of an elevated PSA, although this biomarker has only moderate accuracy. Histological confirmation is traditionally obtained by random transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy, but this approach may underestimate PC. It is generally accepted that a clinically significant PC requires treatment, but in case of an non-significant PC, deferment of treatment and inclusion in an active surveillance program is a valid option. The implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) into a screening program may reduce the risk of overdetection of non-significant PC and improve the early detection of clinically significant PC. A mpMRI consists of T2-weighted images supplemented with diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, and/or magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and is preferably performed and reported according to the uniform quality standards of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS). International guidelines currently recommend mpMRI in patients with persistently rising PSA and previous negative biopsies, but mpMRI may also be used before first biopsy to improve the biopsy yield by targeting suspicious lesions or to assist in the selection of low-risk patients in whom consideration could be given for surveillance.

Teaching Points

• MpMRI may be used to detect or exclude significant prostate cancer.

• MpMRI can guide targeted rebiopsy in patients with previous negative biopsies.

• In patients with negative mpMRI consideration could be given for surveillance.

• MpMRI may add valuable information for the optimal treatment selection.

Approaches for Initial Prostate Biopsy and Antibiotic Prophylaxis

CONTEXT

Debate on the optimal technique to use as an initial prostate biopsy (PB) strategy is continually evolving.

OBJECTIVE

To review recent advances and current recommendations regarding initial PB and antibiotic prophylaxis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A nonsystematic review of the literature was performed up to October 2014 using the PubMed and Embase databases. Articles were selected with preference for the highest level of evidence in publications within the past 5 yr.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The decision to perform PB is still based on an abnormal digital rectal examination or increased prostate0specific antigen (PSA) level without clear consensus about the absolute cutoff. Several biomarkers have been suggested to improve PSA-based PB decision-making and minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The random 12-core transrectal (TR) ultrasound-guided approach remains the standard-of-care technique for PB. A >12-core scheme may be considered as an alternative in a single patient given his clinical features (large volume, low PSA levels). Transperineal biopsies may only be considered as an alternative to the TR route in special situations. Nevertheless, given the increase in antimicrobial resistance, the impact on the post-biopsy sepsis rate should be assessed in well-designed clinical trials. Imaging-guided targeted PB strategies, combined or not with random PBs, may represent the future of prostate cancer diagnosis by reducing the number of PBs and improving decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12-core TR scheme remains the standard of care for initial PB. The actual trend for PB strategy, with the aim of avoiding overdiagnosis of very low-risk cancers, could rapidly change our current indications and techniques through new biomarkers and imaging-guided targeted strategies. Nevertheless, the cost-benefit balance of these techniques should be closely assessed in the setting of initial PB strategy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This review highlights current recommendations for prostate biopsy and possible advances in the near future.

The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review

Despite limitations considering the presence, staging and aggressiveness of prostate cancer, ultrasonography (US)-guided systematic biopsies (SBs) are still the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Recently, promising results have been published for targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion platforms. Different platforms are USA Food and Drug Administration registered and have, mostly subjective, strengths and weaknesses. To our knowledge, no systematic review exists that objectively compares prostate cancer detection rates between the different platforms available. To assess the value of the different MRI/US-fusion platforms in prostate cancer detection, we compared platform-guided TB with SB, and other ways of MRI TB (cognitive fusion or in-bore MR fusion). We performed a systematic review of well-designed prospective randomised and non-randomised trials in the English language published between 1 January 2004 and 17 February 2015, using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included: 'prostate cancer', 'MR/ultrasound(US) fusion' and 'targeted biopsies'. Extraction of articles was performed by two authors (M.G. and A.A.) and were evaluated by the other authors. Randomised and non-randomised prospective clinical trials comparing TB using MRI/US-fusion platforms and SB, or other ways of TB (cognitive fusion or MR in-bore fusion) were included. In all, 11 of 1865 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving seven different fusion platforms and 2626 patients: 1119 biopsy naïve, 1433 with prior negative biopsy, 50 not mentioned (either biopsy naïve or with prior negative biopsy) and 24 on active surveillance (who were disregarded). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of included articles. No clear advantage of MRI/US fusion-guided TBs was seen for cancer detection rates (CDRs) of all prostate cancers. However, MRI/US fusion-guided TBs tended to give higher CDRs for clinically significant prostate cancers in our analysis. Important limitations of the present systematic review include: the limited number of included studies, lack of a general definition of 'clinically significant' prostate cancer, the heterogeneous study population, and a reference test with low sensitivity and specificity. Today, a limited number of prospective studies have reported the CDRs of fusion platforms. Although MRI/US-fusion TB has proved its value in men with prior negative biopsies, general use of this technique in diagnosing prostate cancer should only be performed after critical consideration. Before bringing MRI/US fusion-guided TB in to general practice, there is a need for more prospective studies on prostate cancer diagnosis.

Evaluation of the 'Prostate Interdisciplinary Communication and Mapping Algorithm for Biopsy and Pathology' (PIC-MABP)

INTRODUCTION

Experience from interdisciplinary cooperation revealed the need for a prostate mapping scheme to communicate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings between radiologists, urologists, and pathologists, which should be detailed, yet easy to memorize. For this purpose, the 'Prostate interdisciplinary communication and mapping algorithm for biopsy and pathology' (PIC-MABP) was developed. This study evaluated the accuracy of the PIC-MABP system.

METHODS

PIC-MABP was tested and validated in findings of 10 randomly selected patients from routine clinical practise with 18 histologically proven cancer lesions. Patients received an mpMRI of the prostate prior to prostatectomy. After surgery the prostates were prepared as whole-mount step sections. Cancer lesions, which were found suspicious on mpMRI, were assigned to the according PIC-MABP sectors by a radiologist. MpMRI slides were masked and sent to seven urologists from different centres, providing only the PIC-MABP location of each lesion. Urologists marked the accordant regions. Then mpMRI slides were unmasked, and the correctness of each mark was evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen of the 126 marks (93%) were correctly assigned. Detection rates differed for lesions >0.5 cc compared with lesions <0.5 cc (p < 0.005): 3/7 (43%) marks were correctly assigned in lesions <0.3 cc, 16/21 (76%) in lesions with 0.3-0.5 cc, and 98/98 (100%) in lesions >0.5 cc. Interobserver agreement was good for lesions >0.5 cc and poor for lesions <0.3 cc (Fleiss Kappa 1 vs. 0.0175).

CONCLUSION

PIC-MABP seems to be a reliable system to communicate the location of mpMRI findings >0.5 cc between different disciplines and can be a useful guidance for cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric imaging for the detection of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-ultrasonography (US) and software-generated parametric maps in predicting biopsy outcome and their potential to reduce the amount of negative biopsy cores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 651 prostate biopsy locations (82 consecutive patients) we correlated the interpretation of DCE-US recordings with and without parametric maps with biopsy results. The parametric maps were generated by software which extracts perfusion parameters that differentiate benign from malignant tissue from DCE-US recordings. We performed a stringent analysis (all tumours) and a clinical analysis (clinically significant tumours). We calculated the potential reduction in biopsies (benign on imaging) and the resultant missed positive biopsies (false-negatives). Additionally, we evaluated the performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) on a per-prostate level.

RESULTS

Based on DCE-US, 470/651 (72.2%) of biopsy locations appeared benign, resulting in 40 false-negatives (8.5%), considering clinically significant tumours only. Including parametric maps, 411/651 (63.1%) of the biopsy locations appeared benign, resulting in 23 false-negatives (5.6%). In the per-prostate clinical analysis, DCE-US classified 38/82 prostates as benign, missing eight diagnoses. Including parametric maps, 31/82 prostates appeared benign, missing three diagnoses. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 73, 58, 50 and 79%, respectively, for DCE-US alone and 91, 56, 57 and 90%, respectively, with parametric maps.

CONCLUSION

The interpretation of DCE-US with parametric maps allows good prediction of biopsy outcome. A two-thirds reduction in biopsy cores seems feasible with only a modest decrease in cancer diagnosis.

Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer at Prostate Biopsy and Per Core Detection Rate of Targeted and Systematic Biopsies Using Real-Time Shear Wave Elastography

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) detection is accompanied by overdiagnosis and mischaracterization of PCa. Therefore, new imaging modalities like shear wave elastography (SWE) are required. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate per-core detection rates (DRs) of targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies and to test if SWE findings can predict presence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) at biopsy. Patients and Methods: Overall, 95 patients scheduled for prostate biopsy in our center underwent SWE. SWE findings were classified into suspicious or normal. Targeted biopsies were taken in up to 3 SWE-suspicious areas. csPCa was defined as the presence of Gleason pattern ≥4, level of prostate-specific antigen ≥10 ng/ml or >2 positive cores. Results: Overall DR for csPCa in our study cohort was 40%. Per-core DR for exclusively SWE-targeted cores versus systematic samples cores was 10.5 vs. 8.6% (p = 0.3). In the logistic regression models, individuals with suspicious SWE findings are at 6.4-fold higher risk of harboring csPCa (p = 0.03). Gain in predictive accuracy was 2.3% (0.82 vs. 0.84, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Presence of suspicious SWE findings is an independent predictor of csPCa. Therefore, SWE may be helpful in selecting patients for biopsy. Nonetheless, per-core DR for SWE-targeted cores was not statistically significant higher than DR of systematic sampled cores. Therefore, additional systematic biopsy is mandatory.

The utility and limitations of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer

In association with the widespread use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, the numbers of men identified with early-stage prostate cancer (PCa) are increasing in the developed countries, including Japan. However, the accurate localization of PCa lesions in diagnostic imaging is still difficult because PCa has a tendency to be multifocal in the prostate gland. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) improves the detection of PCa by visualizing cancerous lesions in order to target a needle biopsy. CEUS has the potential to enable not only accurate diagnoses but also novel treatments such as focal therapy. The combination of CEUS and other modalities is expected to improve the diagnosis of PCa and its treatment.

Prostate-specific antigen screening, why have the guidelines changed?

Prostate cancer (PCa) constitutes a major health issue of the western world given its increasing rate of diagnosis and the fact that it is the second cause of cancer-related death among men. Although the incidence of PCa is rising, deaths from PCa are at the same time declining. This phenomenon has been largely attributed to the implementation of PCa screening. However PCa screening, which is mainly performed through serum prostate-specific antigen measurement, does not have the desired diagnostic accuracy. This results in a substantial proportion of men undergoing unnecessary biopsies and consequently given therapies for low-risk cancers that will have no effect in prolonging life and might as well only add morbidity. The current report will discuss the pros and cons of PCa screening in light of the recent modifications in the guidelines regarding the early diagnosis of PCa.