PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review

Head-to-head comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI of the prostate before robot-assisted transperineal fusion prostate biopsy

Purpose

Prostate biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) might be an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI, including dynamic contrast imaging, DCE) to detect and guide targeted biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, there is no upgrading peripheral zone PI-RADS 3 to PI-RADS 4 without DCE in bpMRI. The aim of this study was to evaluate bpMRI against mpMRI in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) scheduled for robot-assisted-transperineal fusion-prostate biopsy (RA-TB).

Methods

Retrospective single-center-study of 563 biopsy-naïve men (from 01/2015 to 09/2018, mean PSA 9.7 ± 6.5 ng/mL) with PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI at 3 T before RA-TB. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2 in any core. Two experienced readers independently evaluated images according to PI-RADSv2.1 criteria (separate readings for bpMRI and mpMRI sequences, 6-month interval). Reference standard was histology from RA-TB.

Results

PI-RADS 2 was scored in 5.1% of cases (3.4% cancer/3.4% csPCa), PI-RADS 3 in 16.9% (32.6%/3.2%), PI-RADS 4 in 57.6% (66.1%/58.3%) and PI-RADS 5 in 20.4% of cases (79.1%/74.8%). For mpMRI/bpMRI test comparison, sensitivity was 99.0%/97.1% (p < 0.001), specificity 47.5%/61.2% (p < 0.001), PPV 69.5%/75.1% (p < 0.001) and NPV 97.6%/94.6% (n.s.). csPCa was considered gold standard. 35 cases without cancer were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 (mpMRI) and six PI-RADS 3 cases with csPCa were not upgraded (bpMRI).

Conclusion

In patients planned for RA-TB with elevated PSA and clinical suspicion for PCa, specificity was higher in bpMRI vs. mpMRI, which could solve constrains regarding time and contrast agent.

Current Status of Biparametric MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Literature Analysis

The role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer is well-established. Based on the limited role of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in PI-RADS v2.1, the risk of potential side effects, and the increased cost and time, there has been an increase in studies advocating for the omission of DCE from MRI assessments. Per PI-RADS v2.1, DCE is indicated in the assessment of PI-RADS 3 lesions in the peripheral zone, with its most pronounced effect when T2WI and DWI are of insufficient quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and reporting in the literature from the past 5 years regarding the use of DCE in prostate MRI, especially with respect to the indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1, and to describe the different approaches used across the studies. We searched for studies investigating the use of bpMRI and/or mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer between January 2017 and April 2022 in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Through the search process, a total of 269 studies were gathered and 41 remained after abstract and full-text screening. The following information was extracted from the eligible studies: general clinical and technical characteristics of the studies, the number of PI-RADS 3 lesions, different definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy thresholds, reference standard methods, and number and experience of readers. Forty-one studies were included in the study. Only 51% (21/41) of studies reported the prevalence of csPCa in their equivocal lesion (PI-RADS category 3 lesions) subgroups. Of the included studies, none (0/41) performed a stratified sub-analysis of the DCE benefit versus MRI quality and 46% (19/41) made explicit statements about removing MRI scans based on a range of factors including motion, noise, and image artifacts. Furthermore, the number of studies investigating the role of DCE using readers with varying experience was relatively low. This review demonstrates that a high proportion of the studies investigating whether bpMRI can replace mpMRI did not transparently report information inherent to their study design concerning the key indications of DCE, such as the number of clinically insignificant/significant PI-RADS 3 lesions, nor did they provide any sub-analyses to test image quality, with some removing bad quality MRI scans altogether, or reader-experience-dependency indications for DCE. For the studies that reported on most of the DCE indications, their conclusions about the utility of DCE were heavily definition-dependent (with varying definitions of csPCa and of the PI-RADS category biopsy significance threshold). Reporting the information inherent to the study design and related to the specific indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1 is needed to determine whether DCE is helpful or not. With most of the recent literature being retrospective and not including the data related to DCE indications in particular, the ongoing dispute between bpMRI and mpMRI is likely to linger.

Abbreviated MR Protocols in Prostate MRI

Prostate MRI is an integral part of the clinical work-up in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer, and its use has been increasing steadily over the last years. To further its general availability and the number of men benefitting from it and to reduce the costs associated with MR, several approaches have been developed to shorten examination times, e.g., by focusing on sequences that provide the most useful information, employing new technological achievements, or improving the workflow in the MR suite. This review highlights these approaches; discusses their implications, advantages, and disadvantages; and serves as a starting point whenever an abbreviated prostate MRI protocol is being considered for implementation in clinical routine.

A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men

BACKGROUND

European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of a risk-based ultrasound (US)-directed pathway (Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator [RPCRC] #3; US volume assessment) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a prospective multicenter study (MR-PROPER) with 1:1 allocation among 21 centers (US arm in 11 centers, MRI arm in ten). Biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age ≥50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0-50 ng/ml, ± abnormal digital rectal examination) were included.

INTERVENTION

Biopsy-naïve men with elevated risk of prostate cancer, determined using RPCRC#3 in the US arm and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3-5 in the MRI arm, underwent systematic biopsies (US arm) or targeted biopsies (MRI arm).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the proportion of men with grade group (GG) ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of biopsies avoided and GG 1 cancers detected. Categorical (nonparametric) data were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and χ² tests.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 1965 men were included in the intention-to-treat population (US arm n = 950, MRI arm n = 1015). The US and MRI pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well (235/950, 25% vs 239/1015, 24%; difference 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6% to 5.0%; p = 0.5). The US pathway detected more GG 1 cancers than the MRI pathway (121/950, 13% vs 84/1015, 8.3%; difference 4.5%, 95% CI 1.8-7.2%; p < 0.01). The US pathway avoided fewer biopsies than the MRI pathway (403/950, 42% vs 559/1015, 55%; difference -13%, 95% CI -17% to -8.3%; p < 0.01). Among men with elevated risk, more GG ≥2 cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the US group (52% vs 43%; difference 9.2%, 95% CI 3.0-15%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-adapted US-directed and MRI-directed pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well. The risk-adapted US-directed pathway performs well for prostate cancer diagnosis if prostate MRI capacity and expertise are not available. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should preferably be performed using MRI, as this avoids more biopsies and detects fewer cases of GG 1 cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Among men with suspected prostate cancer, relevant cancers were equally well detected by risk-based pathways using either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy of the prostate. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should be performed with MRI to reduce unnecessary biopsies and detect fewer irrelevant cancers.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abbreviated Bi-Parametric MRI (a-bpMRI) for Prostate Cancer Detection and Screening: A Multi-Reader Study

(1) Background: There is currently limited evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI (a-bpMRI) protocols for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and screening. In the present study, we aim to investigate the performance of a-bpMRI among multiple readers and its potential application to an imaging-based screening setting. (2) Methods: A total of 151 men who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies were retrospectively selected. Corresponding bpMRI (multiplanar T2WI, DWI, ADC maps) and a-bpMRI (axial T2WI and b 2000 s/mm² DWI only) dataset were derived from mpMRI. Three experienced radiologists scored a-bpMRI, standard biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and mpMRI in separate sessions. Diagnostic accuracy and interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was tested for different positivity thresholds and compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Predictive values of a-bpMRI were computed for lower levels of PCa prevalence to simulate a screening setting. The primary definition of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was Gleason ≥ 4 + 3, or cancer core length ≥ 6 mm. (3) Results: The median age was 62 years, the median PSA was 6.8 ng/mL, and the csPCa prevalence was 40%. Using a cut off of MRI score ≥ 3, the sensitivity and specificity of a-bpMRI were 92% and 48%, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivity compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was moderate (AC1 0.58). For a low prevalence of csPCa (e.g., <10%), higher cut offs (MRI score ≥ 4) yield a more favourable balance between the predictive values and positivity rate of MRI. (4) Conclusion: Abbreviated bpMRI protocols could match the diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI for the detection of csPCa. If a-bpMRI is used in low-prevalence settings, higher cut-offs for MRI positivity should be prioritised.

Fast T2-Weighted Imaging With Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) can potentially improve image quality by reduction of noise, thereby enabling fast acquisition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, a systematic evaluation of image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR has rarely been investigated in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE

To assess the image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR for the evaluation of extraprostatic extension (EPE).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

One hundred and nine men.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3 T; turbo spin echo T2-weighted images (T2WI), echo-planar diffusion-weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

ASSESSMENT

To compare image quality, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and subjective analysis using Likert scales on three T2WIs (MRI using conventional acquisition time, MRI using short acquisition time [fast MRI], and fast MRI with DLR) were performed. The diagnostic performance for EPE was evaluated by three independent readers.

STATISTICAL TESTS

SNR, CNR, and image quality scores across the three imaging protocols were compared using Friedman tests. The diagnostic performance for EPE was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fast MRI with DLR demonstrated significantly higher SNR (mean ± SD, 14.7 ± 6.8 vs. 8.8 ± 4.9) and CNR (mean ± SD, 6.5 ± 6.3 vs. 3.4 ± 3.6) values and higher image quality scores (median, 4.0 vs. 3.0 for three readers) than fast MRI. The AUCs for EPE were significantly higher with the use of DLR (0.86 vs. 0.75 for reader 2 and 0.82 vs. 0.73 for reader 3) compared with fast MRI, whereas differences were not significant for reader 1 (0.81 vs. 0.74; P = 0.09).

DATA CONCLUSION

DLR may be useful in reducing the acquisition time of prostate MRI without compromising image quality or diagnostic performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Comparison of different thresholds of PSA density for risk stratification of PI-RADSv2.1 categories on prostate MRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of different PSA density (PSAD) thresholds on the accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) of the Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System v.2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1).

METHODS

We retrospectively included 123 biopsy-naïve men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transperineal mpMRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy between April 2019 and October 2020. mpMRI, obtained on a 3.0T magnet with a PI-RADSv2.1-compliant protocol, was read by two radiologists (>1500/>500 mpMRI examinations). csPCa was defined as International Society of Urogenital Pathology grading group ≥2. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to calculate per-index lesion sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of PI-RADSv.2.1 categories after adjusting for PSAD ≥0.10,≥0.15, and ≥0.20 ng/mL ml^-1. Per-adjusted category cancer detection rate (CDR) was calculated, and decision analysis performed to compare PSAD-adjusted PI-RADSv.2.1 categories as a biopsy trigger.

RESULTS

csPCa prevalence was 43.9%. PSAD-adjustment increased the CDR of PI-RADSv2.1 category 4. Sensitivity/specificity/AUC were 92.6%/53.6%/0.82 for unadjusted PI-RADS, and 85.2%/72.4%/0.84, 62.9%/85.5%/0.83, and 92.4%/53.6%/0.82 when adjusting PI-RADS categories for a 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 ng/ml ml^-1 PSAD threshold, respectively. Triggering biopsy for PI-RADS four lesions and PSAD ≥0.10 ng/mL ml^-1 was the strategy with greatest net benefit at 30 and 40% risk probability (0.307 and 0.271, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PI-RADSv2.1 category four with PSAD ≥0.10 ng/mL ml^-1 was the biopsy-triggering cut-off with the highest net benefit in the range of expected prevalence for csPCa.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

0.10 ng/mL ml^-1 is the PSAD threshold with higher clinical utility in stratifying the risk for prostate cancer of PI-RADSv.2.1 categories.

Simplified PI-RADS-based biparametric MRI: A rationale for detecting and managing prostate cancer

Biparametric MRI is a potential and valid alternative to multiparametric MRI. The simplified Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (S-PI-RADS)-based biparametric MRI represents the rationale for the validation and standardization in clinical practice of MRI in detecting, managing and guiding biopsy in naïve men with suspicion prostate cancer.

[Interdisciplinary expert consensus on innovations in imaging diagnostics and radionuclide-based therapies for advanced prostate cancer]

Hintergrund

Die zahlreichen diagnostischen und therapeutischen Innovationen beim fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinom, sowohl in der hormonsensitiven als auch in der kastrationsresistenten Situation, haben in den letzten Jahren zu einer Neuorientierung beim Management dieses Tumors geführt. Ungeachtet der bereits in Teilen in der S3-Leitlinie zu Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms abgebildeten neuen diagnostischen und therapeutischen Methoden, gibt es in der klinischen Versorgung darüber hinaus gehende Fälle, in denen Patienten von diesen innovativen Verfahren potenziell profitieren könnten.

Fragestellung

Seit Juli 2018 trifft sich deshalb eine interdisziplinäre Expertengruppe aus Nuklearmedizinern, Radiologen, Radioonkologen und Urologen, um ein Konsensuspapier zu Innovationen der bildgebenden Diagnostik und radionuklidbasierten Therapien des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Studien und Erfahrungen im klinischen Alltag zu erarbeiten.

Schlussfolgerung

Der Arbeitskreis gibt Anregungen, um zu einer besseren Implementierung neuer bildgebender Techniken, wie multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomographie (mpMRT), PSMA-PET/CT (prostataspezifisches Membranantigen – Positronenemissionstomographie/Computertomographie) und innovativer therapeutischer Optionen (Radium-223-dichlorid, Lutetium-177-PSMA) bei den komplexen Therapieoptionen des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms beizutragen.

Improving workflow in prostate MRI: AI-based decision-making on biparametric or multiparametric MRI

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate an artificial intelligence algorithm to decide on the necessity of dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (DCE) in prostate MRI.

METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional review board and requirement for study-specific informed consent was waived. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was developed on 300 prostate MRI examinations. Consensus of two expert readers on the necessity of DCE acted as reference standard. The CNN was validated in a separate cohort of 100 prostate MRI examinations from the same vendor and 31 examinations from a different vendor. Sensitivity/specificity were calculated using ROC curve analysis and results were compared to decisions made by a radiology technician.

RESULTS

The CNN reached a sensitivity of 94.4% and specificity of 68.8% (AUC: 0.88) for the necessity of DCE, correctly assigning 44%/34% of patients to a biparametric/multiparametric protocol. In 2% of all patients, the CNN incorrectly decided on omitting DCE. With a technician reaching a sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 89.1%, the use of the CNN would allow for an increase in sensitivity of 30.5%. The CNN achieved an AUC of 0.73 in a set of examinations from a different vendor.

CONCLUSIONS

The CNN would have correctly assigned 78% of patients to a biparametric or multiparametric protocol, with only 2% of all patients requiring re-examination to add DCE sequences. Integrating this CNN in clinical routine could render the requirement for on-table monitoring obsolete by performing contrast-enhanced MRI only when needed.

Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Classification of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based on Image Quality

Background

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is technically demanding, requiring high image quality to reach its full diagnostic potential. An automated method to identify diagnostically inadequate images could help optimize image quality.

Purpose

To develop a convolutional neural networks (CNNs) based analysis pipeline for the classification of prostate MRI image quality.

Study Type

Retrospective.

Subjects

Three hundred sixteen prostate mpMRI scans and 312 men (median age 67).

Field Strength/Sequence

A 3 T; fast spin echo T2WI, echo planar imaging DWI, ADC, gradient‐echo dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE).

Assessment

MRI scans were reviewed by three genitourinary radiologists (V.P., M.D.M., S.C.) with 21, 12, and 5 years of experience, respectively. Sequences were labeled as high quality (Q1) or low quality (Q0) and used as the reference standard for all analyses.

Statistical Tests

Sequences were split into training, validation, and testing sets (869, 250, and 120 sequences, respectively). Inter‐reader agreement was assessed with the Fleiss kappa. Following preprocessing and data augmentation, 28 CNNs were trained on MRI slices for each sequence. Model performance was assessed on both a per‐slice and a per‐sequence basis. A pairwise t‐test was performed to compare performances of the classifiers.

Results

The number of sequences labeled as Q0 or Q1 was 38 vs. 278 for T2WI, 43 vs. 273 for DWI, 41 vs. 275 for ADC, and 38 vs. 253 for DCE. Inter‐reader agreement was almost perfect for T2WI and DCE and substantial for DWI and ADC. On the per‐slice analysis, accuracy was 89.95% ± 0.02% for T2WI, 79.83% ± 0.04% for DWI, 76.64% ± 0.04% for ADC, 96.62% ± 0.01% for DCE. On the per‐sequence analysis, accuracy was 100% ± 0.00% for T2WI, DWI, and DCE, and 92.31% ± 0.00% for ADC. The three best algorithms performed significantly better than the remaining ones on every sequence (P‐value < 0.05).

Data Conclusion

CNNs achieved high accuracy in classifying prostate MRI image quality on an individual‐slice basis and almost perfect accuracy when classifying the entire sequences.

Evidence Level

4

Technical Efficacy

Stage 1

A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early.

OBJECTIVE

To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-only" screening studies, while at the same time reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis by using new risk stratification tools.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This paper presents a personalised strategy that enables selective early detection of prostate cancer by combining prostate-specific antigen (interval) testing' prediction models (risk calculators), and magnetic resonance imaging scans. This will likely lead to reduced prostate cancer-related morbidity and mortality, while reducing the need for prostate biopsy and limiting overdiagnosis.

Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Nomogram to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Targeted Biopsy for Index Lesion

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is necessary to investigate how to combine biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) with various clinical parameters for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

PURPOSE

To develop a multivariate prebiopsy nomogram using clinical and bpMRI parameters for estimating the probability of csPCa.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective, single-center study.

SUBJECTS

Two hundred and twenty-six patients who underwent targeted biopsy (TBx) for the MRI-suspected index lesion because of clinical suspicions of PCa.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 3 T MRI including turbo spin-echo T₂ -weighted and diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging sequences.

ASSESSMENT

Prebiopsy clinical and bpMRI parameters were patient age, biopsy history (biopsy-naïve or repeated biopsy status), prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1), and apparent diffusion coefficient ratio (ADCR). ADCR was defined as mean ADC of the index lesion divided by mean ADC of the contralateral prostatic region. A multivariate prebiopsy nomogram for csPCa (i.e. Gleason sum ≥7) was developed. Area under the curve (AUC) of each parameter and prebiopsy nomogram was assessed. Five-fold cross-validation was performed for robust estimation of performance of the prebiopsy nomogram.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Logistic regression, receiver-operating curve, and 5-fold cross-validation. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Proportion of csPCa was 31.9% (72/226). The AUCs of age, biopsy-naïve status, PSAD, PI-RADSv2.1, ADCR, and prebiopsy nomogram were 0.657 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.580-0.733), 0.593 (95% CI, 0.525-0.660), 0.762 (95% CI, 0.697-0.826), 0.824 (95% CI, 0.770-0.878), 0.829 (95% CI, 0.769-0.888), and 0.906 (95% CI, 0.863-0.948), respectively: AUC of nomogram was significantly different than that of individual parameter. In the 5-fold cross-validation, the mean AUC of the prebiopsy nomogram for csPCa was 0.888 (95% CI, 0.786-0.983).

DATA CONCLUSIONS

This multivariate prebiopsy nomogram using clinical and bpMRI parameters may help estimate the probability of csPCa in patients undergoing TBx. ADCR seems to enhance the role of bpMRI in detecting csPCa.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

[Clinical impact of abbreviated unenhanced prostate protocols in magnetic resonance imaging]

BACKGROUND

According to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with gadolinium-(Gd)-based contrast agents is the diagnostic standard of care in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). Recent data suggest equivalent performance of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and mpMRI in defined indications.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of the current role of abbreviated or unenhanced protocols in MRI of the prostate in various clinical settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evaluation of clinical trials, guidelines and expert opinions.

RESULTS

The use of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI sequences is associated with contrast agent-associated risks and has significant impact on the imaging procedure and costs. Arguments for and against the use of contrast agent in prostate protocols as well as equivalence from bpMRI and mpMRI are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, bpMRI can only be performed if very good image quality is available and in the hands of a radiologist with extensive experience in reading prostate MRI. There is a need for prospective studies to qualify bpMRI as the diagnostic method for the primary diagnosis of PCa.

Susceptibility artifacts and PIRADS 3 lesions in prostatic MRI: how often is the dynamic contrast-enhance sequence necessary?

PURPOSE

To assess the need of the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequence in addition to T2-weighted imaging (T2-WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the presence of artifacts associated with rectal gas (which compromise the diffusion assessment) and/or PIRADS 3 lesions.

METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was not required. Patients referred consecutively over a period of 5 months for elevated PSA underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). mpMRI was performed using a 3T MRI system without an endorectal coil. The MRI findings were reviewed by two radiologists and were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2). Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. For statistical purposes, lesions were classified as PIRADS 1-2, PIRADS 3, or PIRADS 4-5. First, all studies were reviewed using a biparametric assessment (T2-WI + DWI), and the presence or absence of susceptibility artifacts was assessed for each prostate. Subsequently, all images were analyzed using the standard multiparametric approach (T2-WI + DWI + DCE).

RESULTS

The biparametric evaluation (T2-WI + DWI) showed artifacts (due to the presence of rectal gas or other) in 87 patients (43.5%) and no artifacts in 113 patients (56.5%). In the latter group, 15 patients had peripheral zone (PZ) PIRADS 3 lesions. Thus, a total of 102 patients (51%) had artifacts or PZ PIRADS 3 lesions and therefore required DCE. When evaluating the group of prostates without artifacts, 13.3% of prostates required DCE. A total of 17 (23.9%) PIRADS 4-5 prostate lesions would have not been detected without the use of DCE.

CONCLUSION

Biparametric evaluation of the prostate revealed some limitation due to the presence of artifacts or PIRADS 3 PZ lesions. Artifacts were present in almost 44% of our patients, but when the DWI was correctly evaluated, only 13.3% of prostates required DCE.

ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists’ workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Key Points

• AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence.

• Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists’ workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies.

• Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

Simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) for biparametric MRI to detect and manage prostate cancer: What urologists need to know

Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, while the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is widely known for mpMRI, a proper PI-RADS for bpMRI has not yet been adopted. In this review, we report the current status and the future directions of bpMRI, and propose a simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) that could help radiologists and urologists in the detection and management of PCa.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Single-plane Biparametric and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial in Biopsy-naïve Men

BACKGROUND

Urological guidelines recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The resulting increase in MRI demand might place health care systems under substantial stress.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether single-plane biparametric MRI (fast MRI) workup could represent an alternative to mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant (cs) PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between April 2018 and February 2020, 311 biopsy-naïve men aged ≤75 yr with PSA ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination were randomly assigned to 1.5-T fast MRI (n = 213) or mpMRI (n = 98).

INTERVENTION

All MRI examinations were classified according to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2. Men scored PI-RADS 1-2 underwent 12-core standard biopsy (SBx) and those with PI-RADS 4-5 on fast MRI or PI-RADS 3-5 on mpMRI underwent targeted biopsy in combination with SBx. Equivocal cases on fast MRI (PI-RADS 3) underwent mpMRI and then biopsy according to the findings.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was to compare the detection rate of csPCa in both study arms, setting a 10% difference for noninferiority. The secondary outcome was to assess the role of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in ruling out men who could avoid biopsy among those with equivocal findings on fast MRI.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The overall MRI detection rate for csPCa was 23.5% (50/213; 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.0-29.8%) with fast MRI and 32.7% (32/98; 95% CI 23.6-42.9%) with mpMRI (difference 9.2%; p = 0.09). The reproducibility of the study could have been affected by its single-center nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast MRI followed by mpMRI in equivocal cases is not inferior to mpMRI in the detection of csPCa among biopsy-naïve men aged ≤75 yr with PSA ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination. These findings could pave the way to broader use of MRI for PCa diagnosis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A faster MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) protocol with no contrast agent and fewer scan sequences for examination of the prostate is not inferior to the typical MRI approach in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. If our findings are confirmed in other studies, fast MRI could represent a time-saving and less invasive examination for men with suspicion of prostate cancer. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03693703.

Biparametric (bp) and multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach to prostate cancer disease: a narrative review of current debate on dynamic contrast enhancement

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in male population. Over the last few years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proved to be a robust clinical tool for identification and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer. Though suggestions by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology to use complete multiparametric (mp) T2-weighted/diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)/dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) acquisition for all prostate MRI examinations, the real advantage of functional DCE remains a matter of debate. Recent studies demonstrate that biparametric (bp) and mp approaches have similar accuracy, but controversial evidences remain, and the specific potential benefits of contrast medium administration are still poorly discussed in literature. The bp approach is in fact sufficient in most cases to adequately identify a negative test, or to accurately define the degree of aggressiveness of a lesion, especially if larger or with major characteristics of malignancy. This feature would give the DCE a secondary role, probably limited to a second evaluation of the lesion location, for detecting small cancer or in case of controversy. However, DCE has proved to increase the sensitivity of prostate MRI, though a less specificity. Therefore, an appropriate decision algorithm is needed to standardize the MRI approach. Aim of this review study was to provide a schematic description of bpMRI and mpMRI approaches in the study of prostatic anatomy, focusing on comparative validity and current DCE application. Additional theoretical considerations on prostate MRI are provided.

Advances in the diagnostic options for prostate cancer

Over the past decade, despite the controversies surrounding prostate cancer screening, significant refinements have improved its application. PSA screening, although it has been questioned, appears to confer a mortality benefit and remains the most effective way to identify the possible presence of prostate cancer. Methods to improve the specificity of PSA screening and limit overdiagnosis of indolent cancers, including risk-stratified screening regimens, are currently being utilized. Certain imaging modalities, such as multiparametric MRI, have proven to be excellent adjuncts providing improved risk stratification and the ability for targeted biopsies; however, concerns over variability in interpretation and generalizability persist. A number of novel biomarkers have become available with nearly all demonstrating the ability to improve upon the specificity of PSA screening; however, optimal timing, direct comparisons, and usefulness in conjunction with imaging modalities remain to be elucidated. With the improvement in testing options and recognition of the risk/benefit ratio for men undergoing screening for prostate cancer, the increasing role of shared decision making in the process is emphasized.