What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the detection rates of primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion transperineal prostate biopsy using combined targeted and systematic core distribution in three tertiary referral centres.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective outcome study, 807 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients underwent MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy, as the first diagnostic intervention, between 10/2012 and 05/2016. MRI was reported following the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) criteria. In all, 236 patients had 18-24 systematic transperineal biopsies only, and 571 patients underwent additional targeted biopsies either by MRI-fusion or cognitive targeting if PI-RADS ≥3 lesions were present. Detection rates for any and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in targeted and overall biopsy were calculated and predictive values were calculated for different PI-RADS and PSA density (PSAD) groups.

RESULTS

Cancer was detected in 68% of the patients (546/807) and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 49% (392/807). The negative predictive value of 236 PI-RADS 1-2 MRI in combination with PSAD of <0.1 ng/mL/mL for Gleason score 7-10 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval ± 0.07, 8% of study population). In 418 patients with PI-RADS 4-5 lesions using targeted plus systematic biopsies, the cancer detection rate of Gleason score 7-10 was significantly higher at 71% vs 59% and 61% with either approach alone (P < 0.001). For 153 PI-RADS 3 lesions, the detection rate was 31% with no significant difference to systematic biopsies with 27% (P > 0.05). Limitations include variability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) reading and Gleason grading.

CONCLUSION

MRI-based transperineal biopsy performed at high-volume tertiary care centres with a significant experience of prostate mpMRI and image-guided targeted biopsies yielded high detection rates of Gleason score 7-10 cancer. Prostate biopsies may not be needed for men with low PSAD and an unsuspicious MRI. In patients with high probability lesions, combined targeted and systematic biopsies are recommended.

Low-to-high b value DWI ratio approaches in multiparametric MRI of the prostate: feasibility, optimal combination of b values, and comparison with ADC maps for the visual presentation of prostate cancer

Background

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is considered by experts as one of the key elements in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) employed in oncological studies outside the brain. A low-to-high b value ratio DWI has been proposed as an approach to decrease acquisition time and simplify the analysis of DWI data without the need to use a mathematical model.

Methods

Forty-three men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent mpMRI of the prostate were included. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were created in the MRI scanner using a mono-exponential algorithm [b value (× number of averages) =0 (×1), 10 (×1), 25 (×1), 50 (×1), 100 (×1), 250 (×1), 450 (×1), 1,000 (×2), 1,500 (×3), and 2,000 (×5) s/mm²]. DWI ratio images were calculated with three previously estimated optimal b value combinations: (I) b=100 and b=1,000 s/mm² (R1); (II) b=100 and b=1,500 s/mm² (R2); and (III) b=100 and b=2,000 s/mm² (R3). For quantitative analysis, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between normal and cancerous tissue was compared between the ADC maps and the DWI ratio images in terms of noninferiority. For qualitative analysis, two radiologists read all images in a randomized order without knowing whether the presented image was an ADC map or a DWI ratio image. All images were scored in terms of artifacts, cancer conspicuity and overall image quality with a 5-point scale. Agreement between the readers was assessed by weighted kappa statistics. Agreement was considered as poor when kappa <0.4, fair to good when kappa >0.4 and <0.75 and excellent when kappa >0.75. Mean scores were compared between ADC and each of the DWI ratio images. Agreement between ADC maps and DWI ratio based synthetic ADC were assessed by intraclass correlation (ICC). Values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 were indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. Median difference between low and intermediate/high risk were tested.

Results

Quantitative analysis shows DWI ratio images were not inferior to ADC maps quantitatively [P=0.0298 (ADC vs. R1), <0.0001 (ADC vs. R2) and <0.0001 (ADC vs. R3)]. Qualitatively, DWI ratio images were no more than 0.5 point on Likert scale lower than ADC in overall quality [P=0.0043 (ADC vs. R1), <0.0001 (ADC vs. R2), <0.0001 (ADC vs. R3)]. Reader agreement for the qualitative analysis was good to excellent (weighted kappa =0.4-0.7). Agreement between ADC maps and the synthetic ADC's were excellent. Significant difference between low and intermediate/high risk were found in all measurements on average (all P values <0.05).

Conclusions

We presented an analytical method for searching for the optimal combination of high and low b values for DWI ratio images in terms of minimizing CNR between cancer and surrounding benign tissues. Optimized DWI ratio images are comparable both quantitatively and qualitatively to ADC maps for the interpretation of DWI data in the context of prostate mpMRI.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men: The Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer (BIDOC) Study

IMPORTANCE

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enhances detection and risk stratification for significant prostate cancer but is time-consuming (approximately 40 minutes) and expensive. Rapid and simpler (approximately 15-minute) biparametric MRI (bpMRI) using fewer scan sequences could be implemented as a prostate MRI triage test on a larger scale before performing biopsies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy and negative predictive value (NPV) of a novel bpMRI method in biopsy-naive men in detecting and ruling out significant prostate cancer in confirmatory biopsies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-institutional, paired, prospective cohort study of biopsy-naive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer from November 1, 2015, to June 15, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent bpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging) followed by standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (all men) and targeted biopsies of men with suspicious bpMRI findings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Suspicion grades of bpMRI, biopsy results, and NPV of bpMRI were evaluated for detection of or ruling out significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancerous core length >50% for Gleason score 3 + 4). We compared the diagnostic performance of standard biopsies in all men vs standard plus targeted (combined) biopsies restricted to men with suspicious bpMRI findings. The reference standard was combined biopsy results from all men.

RESULTS

A total of 1020 men were enrolled, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range, 61-71 years) and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 8.0 ng/mL (interquartile range, 5.7-13.0 ng/mL). Combined biopsies detected any and significant prostate cancer in 655 of 1020 men (64%) and 404 of 1020 men (40%), respectively. Restricting combined biopsies to men with suspicious bpMRI findings meant 305 of 1020 men (30%) with low-suspicious bpMRIs could avoid prostate biopsies (biopsy in 715 men with suspicious bpMRIs vs all 1020 men who required standard biopsies [70%]; P < .001). Significant prostate cancer diagnoses were improved by 11% (396 vs 351 men; P < .001), and insignificant prostate cancer diagnoses were reduced by 40% (173 vs 288 men; P < .001) compared with our current diagnostic standard, standard biopsies alone in all men. The NPV of bpMRI findings in ruling out significant prostate cancer was 97% (95% CI, 95%-99%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Low-suspicion bpMRI has a high NPV in ruling out significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Using a simple and rapid bpMRI method as a triage test seems to improve risk stratification and may be used to exclude aggressive disease and avoid unnecessary biopsies with its inherent risks. Future studies are needed to fully explore its role in clinical prostate cancer management.

Gallium 68 PSMA-11 PET/MR Imaging in Patients with Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose To report the results of dual-time-point gallium 68 (⁶⁸Ga) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging prior to prostatectomy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk cancer. Materials and Methods Thirty-three men who underwent conventional imaging as clinically indicated and who were scheduled for radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection were recruited for this study. A mean dose of 4.1 mCi ± 0.7 (151.7 MBq ± 25.9) of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 was administered. Whole-body images were acquired starting 41-61 minutes after injection by using a GE SIGNA PET/MR imaging unit, followed by an additional pelvic PET/MR imaging acquisition at 87-125 minutes after injection. PET/MR imaging findings were compared with findings at multiparametric MR imaging (including diffusion-weighted imaging, T2-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging) and were correlated with results of final whole-mount pathologic examination and pelvic nodal dissection to yield sensitivity and specificity. Dual-time-point metabolic parameters (eg, maximum standardized uptake value [SUV_max]) were compared by using a paired t test and were correlated with clinical and histopathologic variables including prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and tumor volume. Results Prostate cancer was seen at ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET in all 33 patients, whereas multiparametric MR imaging depicted Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesions in 26 patients and PI-RADS 3 lesions in four patients. Focal uptake was seen in the pelvic lymph nodes in five patients. Pathologic examination confirmed prostate cancer in all patients, as well as nodal metastasis in three. All patients with normal pelvic nodes in PET/MR imaging had no metastases at pathologic examination. The accumulation of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 increased at later acquisition times, with higher mean SUV_max (15.3 vs 12.3, P < .001). One additional prostate cancer was identified only at delayed imaging. Conclusion This study found that ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET can be used to identify prostate cancer, while MR imaging provides detailed anatomic guidance. Hence, ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR imaging provides valuable diagnostic information and may inform the need for and extent of pelvic node dissection.

Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy and Optical Coherence Tomography for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Needle-Based, In Vivo Feasibility Study Protocol (IDEAL Phase 2A)

BACKGROUND

Focal therapy for prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative treatment to whole-gland therapies in selected men to diminish side effects in localized prostate cancer. As nowadays imaging cannot offer complete prostate cancer disease characterization, multicore systematic biopsies are recommended (transrectal or transperineal). Optical imaging techniques such as confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography allow in vivo, high-resolution imaging. Moreover, they can provide real-time visualization and analysis of tissue and have the potential to offer additive diagnostic information.

OBJECTIVE

This study has 2 separate primary objectives. The first is to assess the technical feasibility and safety of in vivo focal imaging with confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography. The second is to identify and define characteristics of prostate cancer and normal prostate tissue in confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography imaging by comparing these images with the corresponding histopathology.

METHODS

In this prospective, in vivo feasibility study, needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography imaging will be performed before transperineal template mapping biopsy or radical prostatectomy. First, confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography will be performed in 4 patients (2 for each imaging modality) undergoing transperineal template mapping biopsy to assess the feasibility and safety of confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography. If proven to be safe and feasible, confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography will be performed in 10 patients (5 for each imaging modality) undergoing radical prostatectomy. Confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography images will be analyzed by independent, blinded observers. Confocal laser endomicroscopy- and optical coherence tomography-based qualitative and quantitative characteristics and histopathology will be compared. The study complies with the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) stage 2a recommendations.

RESULTS

At present, the study is enrolling patients and results and outcomes are expected in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography are promising optical imaging techniques that can visualize and analyze tissue structure, possible tumor grade, and architecture in real time. They can potentially provide real-time, high-resolution microscopic imaging and tissue characteristics of prostate cancer in conjunction with magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy procedures. This study will provide insight into the feasibility and tissue-specific characteristics of confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography for real-time optical analysis of prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03253458; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03253458 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6z9owM66B).

REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER

RR1-10.2196/9813.

Imaging for the selection and monitoring of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

Traditional prostate imaging is fairly limited, and only a few imaging modalities have been used for this purpose. Until today, grey scale ultrasound was the most widely used method for the characterization of the prostatic gland, however its limitations for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are well known and hence ultrasound is primarily used to localize the prostate and facilitate template prostate biopsies. In the past decade, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as a promising tool for the detection of PCa. Evidence has shown the value of mpMRI in the active surveillance (AS) population, given its ability to detect more aggressive disease, with data building up and supporting its use for the selection of patients suitable for surveillance. Additionally, mpMRI targeted biopsies have shown an improved detection rate of aggressive PCa when compared to regular transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsies. Current data supports the use of mpMRI in patients considered for AS for reclassification purposes; with a negative mpMRI indicating a decreased risk of reclassification. However, a percentage of patients with negative imaging or low suspicion lesions can experience reclassification, highlighting the importance of repeat confirmatory biopsy regardless of mpMRI findings. At present, no robust data is available to recommend the substitution of regular biopsies with mpMRI in the follow-up of patients on AS and efforts are being made to determine the role of integrating genomic markers with imaging with the objective of minimizing the need of biopsies during the follow up period.

MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?

This review focuses on indeterminate lesions on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), assigned as PI-RADS category 3. The prevalence of PI-RADS 3 index lesion in the diagnostic work-up is significant, varying between one in three (32%) to one in five (22%) men, depending on patient cohort of first biopsies, previously negative biopsies, and active surveillance biopsies. A management strategy must be developed for this group of men with an indeterminate suspicion of having clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Currently available data show that the actual prevalence of csPCa after targeted biopsy in PI-RADS 3 lesions vary between patients groups from one in five (21%) to one in six (16%), depending on previous biopsy status. Although this prevalence is lower in comparison to PI-RADS 4 and PI-RADS 5 lesions, still a considerable proportion of men harbor significant disease. Men with such a PI-RADS 3 lesion should therefore be adequately managed. In general, the clinical approach of using a threshold of PI-RADS ≥4 instead of PI-RADS ≥3 to select MRI for targeted biopsies is not supported by data from our explorative literature search using current definitions of csPCa. A possible adaptation to the threshold of PI-RADS ≥4 in combination with other clinical markers could be considered within an active surveillance protocol, where the balance between the individual risk of missing csPCa and the constant process of repeating prostate biopsies is crucial. In the future, improvements in MR imaging and interpretation, combined with molecular biomarkers and multivariate risk models will all be employed in prostate cancer detection and monitoring. These combinations will aid decision-making in challenging circumstances, such as unclear and diagnostic equivocal results for csPCa at early 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.

What is an acceptable false negative rate in the detection of prostate cancer?

Background

In prostate cancer (PCa) screening men and their physicians aim to rule out the presence of potentially life threatening PCa. To date, prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and systematic prostate biopsy (Bx)—in case of an elevated PSA—are still the main modes of PCa detection. Often uncertainty remains when a PSA-test is <3.0 ng/mL or a Bx shows a benign result, leading to the continuous repeating of procedures. Here we assess the potential consequences of false negatives by studying follow-up data of a purely PSA-based approach with applying sextant Bx, an approach considered to have a high risk of missing PCa diagnosis.

Methods

Our study population consisted of 19,970 men from the ERSPC project section Rotterdam, initially screened in 1993–1999. We assessed clinically significant Gleason ≥3+4 PCa (csPCa) diagnosis within the 4-year screening interval and subsequent screening round 4 years later in men having a PSA <3.0 ng/mL at initial screening (no Bx) and men with Bx (PSA >3.0 ng/mL), but no PCa detected at that time. In addition, we addressed PCa mortality and PCa diagnosis for men with a negative PSA test and negative Bx, who were retested every 4 years covering a 15-year follow-up.

Results

A total of 14,935 men had PSA <3.0 ng/mL in the initial screening round, of whom 75 (0.5%) were diagnosed with csPCa at a subsequent screening examination and 2 (<0.1%) in the 4-year screening interval. For 2,260 men with a previously negative Bx at first screening, the figures were 17 (0.8%) and 2 (0.1%) respectively. Indolent PCa (Gleason ≤3+3) was diagnosed in 312 (2%) men with PSA <3.0 ng/mL initially and 115 (5%) men with initial negative Bx. After a 15-year follow-up, 45 (0.3%) PCa deaths occurred in men with initially low PSA, and 29 men (0.2%) had metastasis. For men with negative Bx, 11 (0.5%) PCa deaths occurred and 4 (0.2%) experienced metastasis.

Conclusions

The false negative rates for men with PSA <3.0 ng/mL and negative sextant Bx are extremely low but not negligible. Proper risk stratification before deciding to biopsy is expected to hardly miss any clinical significant PCa diagnosis. This is especially relevant with the increased use of the relatively expensive multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) guided targeted Bx procedures.

Focal Ablation of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: Candidate Selection, Treatment Guidance, and Assessment of Outcome

Prostate cancer lesions smaller than 0.5 m³, or Gleason pattern 3, are likely clinically insignificant. Clinically significant disease is often limited to a single index lesion. Focal ablation targets this index lesion, maintains oncological control, and minimizes complications by preserving healthy prostate tissue. Template mapping biopsy or multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsies are used to identify appropriate index lesions. Multiple energy modalities have been tested, including high-intensity frequency ultrasound, cryoablation, laser ablation, photodynamic therapy, focal brachytherapy, radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation. Outcome is assessed by biopsy of the target area, triggered by prostate-specific antigen measurements or MRI imaging, or performed per protocol at 12 months.

Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the frequency of clinically significant cancer (CSC) in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 (equivocal) lesions prospectively identified on multiparametric prostate MRI and to identify risk factors (RFs) for CSC that may aid in decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and July 2016, a total of 977 consecutively seen men underwent multiparametric prostate MRI, and 342 underwent MRI-ultrasound (US) fusion targeted biopsy. A total of 474 lesions were retrospectively reviewed, and 111 were scored as PI-RADS category 3 and were visualized using a 3-T MRI scanner. Multiparametric prostate MR images were prospectively interpreted by body subspecialty radiologists trained to use PI-RADS version 2. CSC was defined as a Gleason score of at least 7 on targeted biopsy. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to identify the RFs associated with CSC.

RESULTS

Of the 111 PI-RADS category 3 lesions, 81 (73.0%) were benign, 11 (9.9%) were clinically insignificant (Gleason score, 6), and 19 (17.1%) were clinically significant. On multivariate analysis, three RFs were identified as significant predictors of CSC: older patient age (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; p = 0.002), smaller prostate volume (OR, 0.94; p = 0.008), and abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings (OR, 3.92; p = 0.03). For PI-RADS category 3 lesions associated with zero, one, two, or three RFs, the risk of CSC was 4%, 16%, 62%, and 100%, respectively. PI-RADS category 3 lesions for which two or more RFs were noted (e.g., age ≥ 70 years, gland size ≤ 36 mL, or abnormal DRE findings) had a CSC detection rate of 67% with a sensitivity of 53%, a specificity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 67%, and a negative predictive value of 91%.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating clinical parameters into risk stratification algorithms may improve the ability to detect clinically significant disease among PI-RADS category 3 lesions and may aid in the decision to perform biopsy.

Magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of prostate cancer and review of the literature on magnetic resonance imaging-stratified clinical pathways

INTRODUCTION

With level 1 evidence now available on the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) we must now utilise this data in developing an MRI-stratified diagnostic pathway for the early detection of prostate cancer. Areas covered: A literature review was conducted and identified seven randomised control trials (RCT's) assessing the diagnostic accuracy of such a pathway against the previously accepted systematic/random trans-rectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) biopsy pathway. The studies were heterogeneous in their design. Five studies assessed the addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to a standard care systematic TRUS biopsy pathway. Three of these studies showed either an increase in their diagnostic accuracy or the potential to remove systematic biopsies. Two studies looked specifically at a targeted biopsy only pathway and although the results were again mixed, there was no decrease in the diagnostic rate and overall significantly fewer biopsy cores were taken in the MRI group. Expert commentary: Results from these RCT's together with multiple retrospective and prospective studies point towards either an improved diagnostic rate for clinically significant cancer and/or a reduction in the need for systematic biopsies with a MRI-stratified pathway. The challenge for the urological community will be to implement pre-biopsy MRI into a routine clinical pathway with likely independent monitoring of standards.

[Indications and limits of ablative therapies in prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVE

To perform a state of the art about indications and limits of ablative therapies for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

A review of the scientific literature was performed in Medline database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using different associations of keywords. Publications obtained were selected based on methodology, language and relevance. After selection, 107 articles were analysed.

RESULTS

The objective to combine reduction of side effects and oncological control has induced recent development of several ablative therapies. Beyond this heterogeneity, some preferential indications appear: unilateral cancer of low risk (but with significant volume, excluding active surveillance) or intermediate risk (excluding majority of grade 4); treatment targeted the index lesion, by quarter or hemi-ablation, based on biopsy and mpMRI. In addition, indications must considered specific limits of each energy, such as gland volume and tumor localization.

CONCLUSION

Based on new imaging and biopsy, ablative therapies will probably increased its role in the future in management of localize prostate cancer. The multiple ongoing trials will certainly be helpful to better define their indications and limits.

MRI Fusion-Targeted Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and the Role of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density and Prostate Health Index for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Southeast Asian Men

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that targeted biopsy has a higher detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) than systematic biopsy. We defined csPCa as any Gleason sum ≥7 cancer. In patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions, to determine if factors, such as prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and prostate health index (PHI), can predict csPCa and help select patients for biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report the first series of targeted biopsies in Southeast Asian men, with comparison against systematic biopsy. Consecutive patients were registered into a prospective institutional review board-approved database in our institution. We reviewed patients who underwent biopsy from May 2016 to June 2017. Inclusion criteria for our study were patients with at least one PI-RADS ≥3, and who underwent both targeted and systematic biopsies in the same sitting.

RESULTS

There were 115 patients in the study, of whom 74 (64.3%) had a previous negative systematic biopsy. Targeted biopsies detected significantly less Gleason 6 cancers than systematic biopsies (p < 0.01), and demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) for the detection of csPCa. For patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions, PHI and PSAD were found to be the best predictors for csPCa. PSAD <0.10 ng/mL/mL had an NPV of 93% and sensitivity of 92%, while allowing 20% of patients to avoid biopsy. PHI cutoff of <27 would allow 34% of patients to avoid biopsy, with both sensitivity and NPV of 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted prostate biopsies were found to be significantly superior to systematic biopsies for the detection of csPCa, while detecting less Gleason 6 cancer. Usage of PSAD and PHI cutoff levels in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions may enable a number of patients to avoid unnecessary biopsy.

New advances in focal therapy for early stage prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate focal therapy offers men the opportunity to achieve oncological control while preserving sexual and urinary function. The prerequisites for successful focal therapy are to accurately identify, localize and completely ablate the clinically significant cancer(s) within the prostate. We aim to evaluate the evidence for current and upcoming technologies that could shape the future of prostate cancer focal therapy in the next five years. Areas covered: Current literature on advances in patient selection using imaging, biopsy and biomarkers, ablation techniques and adjuvant treatments for focal therapy are summarized. A literature search of major databases was performed using the search terms 'focal therapy', 'focal ablation', 'partial ablation', 'targeted ablation', 'image guided therapy' and 'prostate cancer'. Expert commentary: Advanced radiological tools such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), multiparametric ultrasound (mpUS), prostate-specific-membrane-antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) represent a revolution in the ability to understand cancer function and biology. Advances in ablative technologies now provide a menu of modalities that can be rationalized based on lesion location, size and perhaps in the near future, pre-determined resistance to therapy. However, these need to be carefully studied to establish their safety and efficacy parameters. Adjuvant strategies to enhance focal ablation are under development.

Diagnostic value and relative weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa).

Materials and methods

We used a prospective database of 262 patients who underwent T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging before prostatectomy. For each lesion, two independent readers (R1, R2) prospectively defined nine features: shape, volume (V_Max), signal abnormality on each pulse sequence, number of pulse sequences with a marked (S_Max) and non-visible (S_Min) abnormality, likelihood of extracapsular extension (ECE) and PSA density (dPSA). Overall likelihood of malignancy was assessed using a 5-level Likert score. Features were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). csPCa was defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer (csPCa-A), Gleason ≥7(4+3) cancer (csPCa-B) or Gleason ≥7 cancer with histological extraprostatic extension (csPCa-C),

Results

For csPCa-A, the Signal1 model (S_Max+S_Min) provided the best combination of signal-related variables, for both readers. The performance was improved by adding V_Max, ECE and/or dPSA, but not shape. All models performed better with DCE findings than without.

When moving from csPCa-A to csPCa-B and csPCa-C definitions, the added value of V_Max, dPSA and ECE increased as compared to signal-related variables, and the added value of DCE decreased.

For R1, the best models were Signal1+ECE+dPSA (AUC = 0,805 [95%CI:0,757–0,866]), Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0.823 [95%CI:0.760–0.893]) and Signal1+ECE+dPSA [AUC = 0.840 (95%CI:0.774–0.907)] for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0.844 [95%CI:0.806–0.877, p = 0.11], 0.841 [95%CI:0.799–0.876, p = 0.52]) and 0.849 [95%CI:0.811–0.884, p = 0.49], respectively.

For R2, the best models were Signal1+V_Max+dPSA (AUC = 0,790 [95%CI:0,731–0,857]), Signal1+V_Max (AUC = 0.813 [95%CI:0.746–0.882]) and Signal1+ECE+V_Max (AUC = 0.843 [95%CI: 0.781–0.907]) for csPCa-A, csPCA-B and csPCA-C respectively. The AUCs of the corresponding Likert scores were 0. 829 [95%CI:0.791–0.868, p = 0.13], 0.790 [95%CI:0.742–0.841, p = 0.12]) and 0.808 [95%CI:0.764–0.845, p = 0.006]), respectively.

Conclusion

Combination of simple variables can match the Likert score’s results. The optimal combination depends on the definition of csPCa.

Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer screening offers the opportunity to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from this disease. Currently, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is the most widely used screening modality. However, PSA testing continues to have low positive and negative predictive value leading to unnecessary invasive prostate biopsy while missing patients with aggressive forms of the disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been gaining an increasingly large role in the management of patients with early stage prostate cancer including diagnosis in patients with abnormal PSA levels, monitoring of patients on active surveillance, and staging prior to definitive interventions. MRI-based prostate cancer risk assessment has been shown to better distinguish between clinically-significant and insignificant tumors than PSA testing alone or from nomograms. Preliminary data indicate that, among unselected patients, MRI outperforms PSA in the identification of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further work is needed to examine the role of mpMRI in prostate cancer screening.