Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Comparison of Multiparametric MRI and the Combination of PSMA Plus MRI for the Intraprostatic Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and the combination of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET plus MRI (PSMA + MRI) for detecting intraprostatic clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Relevant databases were searched through November 2023. Only studies directly comparing mpMRI and PSMA + MRI (PET/MRI or PET/CT + mpMRI) were included. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for each approach.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included. On a patient-level analysis, PSMA + MRI had higher sensitivity (9 studies) than mpMRI for csPCa detection (96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 92%, 98%] vs 89% [95% CI: 81%, 94%]; P = 0.04). The patient-level specificity (4 studies) of PSMA + MRI was 55% (95% CI: 31%-76%) compared with 50% (95% CI: 44%-57%) of mpMRI ( P = 0.67). Region-level sensitivity (10 studies) was 85% (95% CI: 74%-92%) for PSMA + MRI and 71% (95% CI: 58%-82%) for mpMRI ( P = 0.09), whereas specificity (4 studies) was 87% (95% CI: 76%-94%) and 90% (95% CI: 82%-95%), respectively ( P = 0.59). Lesion-level sensitivity and specificity were similar between modalities with pooled data from less than 4 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

PSMA + MRI had superior pooled sensitivity and similar specificity for the detection of csPCa compared with mpMRI in this meta-analysis of head-to-head studies.

Comparison of Multiparametric MRI-targeted and Systematic Biopsies for Detection of Cribriform and Intraductal Carcinoma Prostate Cancer

Background Intraductal carcinoma (IDC) and invasive cribriform (Cr) subtypes of prostate cancer (PCa) are an indication of aggressiveness, but the evidence regarding whether MRI can be used to detect Cr/IDC-pattern PCa is contradictory. Purpose To compare the detection of Cr/IDC-pattern PCa at multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive men at risk for PCa. Materials and Methods This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial that recruited participants with a clinical suspicion of PCa between April 2017 and November 2019 at five centers. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either the MRI arm or the systematic biopsy arm. Targeted biopsy was performed in participants with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of at least 3. MRI features were recorded, and biopsy slides and prostatectomy specimens were reviewed for the presence or absence of Cr/IDC histologic patterns. Comparison of Cr/IDC patterns was performed using generalized linear mixed modeling. Results A total of 453 participants were enrolled, with 226 in the systematic biopsy arm (median age, 65 years [IQR, 59-70 years]; 196 biopsies available for assessment) and 227 in the mpMRI-targeted biopsy arm (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 132 biopsies available for assessment). Identification of Cr/IDC PCa was lower in the systematic biopsy arm compared with the mpMRI arm (31 of 196 biopsies [16%] vs 33 of 132 biopsies [25%]; P = .01). No evidence of a difference in mean cancer core length (CCL) (11.3 mm ± 4.4 vs 9.7 mm ± 4.5; P = .09), apparent diffusion coefficient (685 µm2/sec ± 178 vs 746 µm2/sec ± 245; P = .52), or dynamic contrast-enhanced positivity (27 [82%] vs 37 [90%]; P = .33) for clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was observed between participants with or without Cr/IDC disease in the MRI arm. Cr/IDC-positive histologic patterns overall had a higher mean CCL compared with Cr/IDC-negative csPCa (11.1 mm ± 4.4 vs 9.2 mm ± 4.1; P = .009). Conclusion MRI-targeted biopsy showed increased detection of Cr/IDC histologic patterns compared with systematic biopsy. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02936258 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scialpi and Martorana in this issue.

Transition from Transrectal to Transperineal MRI-Fusion Prostate Biopsy Does Not Comprise Detection Rates of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

A remarkable paradigm shift has emerged regarding the preferred prostate biopsy approach, favoring the transperineal (TP) over the transrectal (TR) approach due to the reduced risk of severe urinary tract infections. However, its impact on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We relied on a prospectively maintained tertiary care database to identify patients who underwent either TP or TR prostate biopsy between 01/2014 and 12/2023. Of those, only patients with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PIRADS lesions (Likert-scale: 3,4,5) received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. Detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥ 2) were compared between biopsy approach (TP vs. TR) according to index lesion. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to investigate the predictive status of the biopsy approach within each subcohort.

RESULTS

Of 2063 patients, 1118 (54%) underwent combined MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy and were included in the final cohort. Of those, 127 (11%) and 991 (89%) underwent TP vs. TR. CsPCa rates, regardless of differences in patients' demographics and distribution of index PIRDAS lesions, did not differ statistically significantly and were 51 vs. 52%, respectively (p = 0.8). CsPCa detection rates for PIRDAS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 did not differ and were 24 vs. 23%, 48 vs. 51% and 72 vs. 76% for PIRADS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 subgroups for TP vs. TR, respectively (all p ≥ 0.9) Conclusions: The current results support the available data indicating that TP biopsy approach is comparable to transrectal biopsy approach regarding csPCa detection rates.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsies: 2-year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial (PRECISE)

BACKGROUND

The prospective randomized PRECISE trial demonstrated that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with only targeted biopsy (TBx) was noninferior to systematic transrectal ultrasound biopsy (SBx) in the detection of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer (PC). An unanswered question is the outcome for patients who avoided a biopsy because of negative MRI findings.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the rate of PC diagnosis based on 2-yr MRI for PRECISE participants who had no biopsy and for patients who had a negative result or GG 1 on TBx in comparison to those with a negative result or GG 1 on SBx.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The PRECISE prospective trial was conducted at five Canadian academic centers. The present analysis was for trial participants who were not diagnosed with clinically significant PC (csPC) at baseline. Of 453 randomized patients, 146 were diagnosed with GG ≥2 at baseline and were excluded. Eligible patients for this study included 83 men from the MRI arm who had negative MRI findings and no biopsy, 120 from the overall cohort who had a negative SBx or TBx, and 72 from the overall cohort who were diagnosed with GG 1 disease.

INTERVENTION

MRI at 2 yr in all men in the MRI and SBx arms and TBx for lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of ≥3 or on the basis of clinical suspicion.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the proportion of men diagnosed with GG ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes included the MRI outcome and the proportion of men diagnosed with GG 1 PC.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Evaluable 2-yr MRI scans were available for 75 (56%) eligible patients in the MRI arm and 69 (49%) in the SBx arm. Of these patients, 55 (73%) in the MRI arm and 51 (67%) SBx arm had negative 2-yr MRI. Of the 76 patients in the SBx arm with 2-yr MRI, 16 (21%) had a biopsy, for which the result was negative in eight (10%), GG1 in two (2.6%), and GG ≥2 in six (7.9%) cases. Of the 75 men in the MRI arm with 2-yr MRI, eight (11%) were biopsied, for which the result was negative in four cases (5%) and GG ≥2 in the other four (5%). At 2 yr, including baseline biopsy results, 116/221 (52.5%) in the MRI arm and 113/204 (55%) in the SBx arm were free of GG ≥2 disease, treatment, death from any cause, or progression (OR 1.08; p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

After 2-yr follow-up including MRI for patients in both arms of PRECISE, there was no difference in the rate of csPC diagnosis between the MRI and SBx groups, even though 38% of men in the MRI group avoided an initial biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The PRECISE trial compared systematic biopsy of the prostate to a strategy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy of any lesions suspicious for cancer on the scan. After 2 years of follow-up that included 2-year MRI with or without biopsy in both groups, there was no difference in the rate of diagnosis of significant cancer, even though 38% of men in the initial MRI arm avoided an initial biopsy, and 30% avoided biopsy altogether. The PRECISE trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02936258.

Performance of standard systematic biopsy versus MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using the Navigo® system in contemporary cohort

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of multi parameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in combination with MRI/TRUS fusion and systematic biopsy resulted in improved detection of prostate cancer. The aim of the current study was to document the performance of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate using the Navigo™ software in a contemporary cohort of patients from nonreferral centers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a two centers prospective data collection (2014-2020) for men with clinically suspected Pca and patients on active surveillance for low-risk Pca that were referred for TRUS biopsy after performing mpMRI of the prostate with a visible lesion. The primary outcome was detection of clinically significant cancer (csPca) defined as ISUP grade group ≥2. Patients were stratified according to biopsy technique and PI-RADS category.

RESULTS

The study group included 236 patients of whom 129 (54.9%) were diagnosed with Pca and 82 (34.7%) with csPca (GG ≥ 2) on combined biopsy. The overall detection of csPca was 31% for targeted vs. 25.4% for systematic biopsy with an absolute difference of 5.6% in favor of the fusion technique. No significant difference between the two techniques was observed for detection of benign prostate or GG1 disease. The improved performance of the targeted approach was noted only in patients with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Of the patients with csPca 10 (12%) were diagnosed only by the systematic biopsy while 20 (24%) were detected only in the fusion biopsy. Systematic biopsy of prostate lobe without MRI lesion detected only 2 cases (∼1%) with high grade disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of csPca by mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using the 3D Navigo™ system is feasible. The targeted approach outperforms the systematic one, however the later technique also detects high risk disease and should be included in the biopsy procedure. The overall detection rate (34.9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer by both targeted and systematic sampling is relatively low.

Evaluation of a Cascaded Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Prostate Lesion Detection at Biparametric MRI

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves prostate cancer (PCa) detection compared with systematic biopsy, but its interpretation is prone to interreader variation, which results in performance inconsistency. Artificial intelligence (AI) models can assist in mpMRI interpretation, but large training data sets and extensive model testing are required. Purpose To evaluate a biparametric MRI AI algorithm for intraprostatic lesion detection and segmentation and to compare its performance with radiologist readings and biopsy results. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective registry included consecutive patients with suspected or known PCa who underwent mpMRI, US-guided systematic biopsy, or combined systematic and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy between April 2019 and September 2022. All lesions were prospectively evaluated using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. The lesion- and participant-level performance of a previously developed cascaded deep learning algorithm was compared with histopathologic outcomes and radiologist readings using sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Results A total of 658 male participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 61-71 years]) with 1029 MRI-visible lesions were included. At histopathologic analysis, 45% (294 of 658) of participants had lesions of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) 2 or higher. The algorithm identified 96% (282 of 294; 95% CI: 94%, 98%) of all participants with clinically significant PCa, whereas the radiologist identified 98% (287 of 294; 95% CI: 96%, 99%; P = .23). The algorithm identified 84% (103 of 122), 96% (152 of 159), 96% (47 of 49), 95% (38 of 40), and 98% (45 of 46) of participants with ISUP GG 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In the lesion-level analysis using radiologist ground truth, the detection sensitivity was 55% (569 of 1029; 95% CI: 52%, 58%), and the PPV was 57% (535 of 934; 95% CI: 54%, 61%). The mean number of false-positive lesions per participant was 0.61 (range, 0-3). The lesion segmentation DSC was 0.29. Conclusion The AI algorithm detected cancer-suspicious lesions on biparametric MRI scans with a performance comparable to that of an experienced radiologist. Moreover, the algorithm reliably predicted clinically significant lesions at histopathologic examination. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer after a Nonsuspicious Prostate MRI-A Comparison with the General Population

BACKGROUND

We compare the risk of clinically significant (csPCa; ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2) and insignificant prostate cancer (isPCa; ISUP Grade Group 1) in men with a nonsuspicious prostate MRI (nMRI; PI-RADS ≤ 2) with the general population, and assess the value of PSA density (PSAD) in stratification.

METHODS

In this retrospective population-based cohort study we identified 1,682 50-79-year-old men, who underwent nMRI at HUS (2016-2019). We compared their age-standardized incidence rates (IR) of csPCa and the odds of isPCa to a local age- and sex-matched general population (n = 230,458) during a six-year follow-up. Comparisons were performed by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRR) and ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We repeated the comparison for the 920 men with nMRI and PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3.

RESULTS

Compared with the general population, the IR of csPCa was significantly higher after nMRI [1,852 vs. 552 per 100,000 person-years; IRR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.8-4.1)]. However, the IR was substantially lower if PSAD was low [778 per 100,000 person-years; IRR 1.4 (95% CI, 0.9-2.0)]. ORs for isPCa were 2.4 (95% CI, 1.7-3.5) for all men with nMRI and 5.0 (95% CI, 2.8-9.1) if PSAD was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the general population, the risk of csPCa is not negligible after nMRI. However, men with nMRI and PSAD <0.15 ng/mL/cm3 have worse harm-benefit balance than men in the general population.

IMPACT

Prostate biopsies for men with nMRI should be reserved for cases indicated by additional risk stratification. See related In the Spotlight, p. 641.

Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a triage tool for reducing unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients at risk of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to assess the usefulness of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a triage tool for selecting patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa) who should undergo multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We enrolled 204 patients with suspected PCa. For each patient, a blood sample was collected before mpMRI to measure PHI. Findings on mpMRI were assessed according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) category scale.

RESULTS

According to PI-RADSv2, patients were classified into two groups: PI-RADS < 3 (48 %) and ≥ 3 (52 %). PHI showed the best performance for predicting PI-RADS ≥ 3 [AUC: 0,747 (0,679-0,815), 0,680(0,607-0,754), and 0,613 (0,535-0,690) for PHI, PSA ratio, and total PSA, respectively]. The best PHI cut-off was 30, with a sensitivity of 90%. At the univariate logistic regression, total PSA (p = 0.007), PSA ratio (p = 0.001), [-2]proPSA (p = 0.019) and PHI (p < 0.001) were associated with PI-RADS ≥ 3; however, at the multivariate analysis, only PHI (p < 0.001) was found to be an independent predictor of PI-RADS ≥ 3.

CONCLUSION

PHI could represent a reliable noninvasive tool for selecting patients to undergo mpMRI.

Association of extended core sampling with delayed intervention and pathologic outcomes for active surveillance patients A population-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

Combined systematic plus targeted biopsy sampling improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to evaluate whether extended core sampling at initial biopsy in active surveillance (AS) patients is associated with subsequent AS discontinuation and pathologic outcomes.

METHODS

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and favorable-intermediate-risk (FIR) AS patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Prostate with Watchful Waiting database. Prostate biopsy sampling was operationalized as: standard (10-12 cores), extended (13-20 cores), or super-extended (21+ cores). Sensitivity analyses using differing cutoffs was performed. Outcomes included delayed definitive intervention (radical prostatectomy [RP]/radiotherapy) and pathologic upgrading and/or downgrading in delayed RP patients. Multivariable logistic regression modelling adjusted for sociodemographic/oncologic variables was performed.

RESULTS

This cohort included 42 459 patients (low-risk: 28 411; FIR:14 048); 25-29% and 3-5% of patients underwent extended and super-extended core sampling, respectively, at diagnosis. Extended core sampling was associated with decreased odds of definitive intervention in low (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, p=0.003) and grade group 2 (GG2) FIR (OR 0.83, p=0.002) patients. Super-extended sampling was associated with decreased odds of definitive intervention in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 FIR patients (OR 0.65, p=0.02). Super-extended sampling was associated with decreased odds of upgrading to ≥GG2 disease in low-risk (OR 0.45, p=0.032) and to ≥GG3 disease in GG2 FIR patients (OR 0.67, p=0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based analysis demonstrates that extended/super-extended sampling at diagnosis is associated with significantly decreased odds of AS discontinuation and pathologic upgrading in low/FIR AS patients. This highlights the significance of extended tissue sampling at initial biopsy to appropriately risk-stratify AS patients and minimize AS discontinuation rates.

Liquid Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Current Status and Emerging Prospects

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major health concern that necessitates appropriate diagnostic approaches for timely intervention. This review critically evaluates the role of liquid biopsy techniques, focusing on blood- and urine-based biomarkers, in overcoming the limitations of conventional diagnostic methods. The 4Kscore test and Prostate Health Index have demonstrated efficacy in distinguishing PCa from benign conditions. Urinary biomarker tests such as PCa antigen 3, MyProstateScore, SelectMDx, and ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore test have revolutionized risk stratification and minimized unnecessary biopsies. Emerging biomarkers, including non-coding RNAs, circulating tumor DNA, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) glycosylation, offer valuable insights into PCa biology, enabling personalized treatment strategies. Advancements in non-invasive liquid biomarkers for PCa diagnosis may facilitate the stratification of patients and avoid unnecessary biopsies, particularly when PSA is in the gray area of 4 to 10 ng/mL.

Expected impact of MRI-targeted biopsy interreader variability among uropathologists on ProScreen prostate cancer screening trial: a pre-trial validation study

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) histology, particularly the Gleason score, is an independent prognostic predictor in PCa. Little is known about the inter-reader variability in grading of targeted prostate biopsy based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to assess inter-reader variability in Gleason grading of MRI-targeted biopsy among uropathologists and its potential impact on a population-based randomized PCa screening trial (ProScreen).

METHODS

From June 2014 to May 2018, 100 men with clinically suspected PCa were retrospectively selected. All men underwent prostate MRI and 86 underwent targeted prostate of the prostate. Six pathologists individually reviewed the pathology slides of the prostate biopsies. The five-tier ISUP (The International Society of Urological Pathology) grade grouping (GG) system was used. Fleiss' weighted kappa (κ) and Model-based kappa for associations were computed to estimate the combined agreement between individual pathologists.

RESULTS

GG reporting of targeted prostate was highly consistent among the trial pathologists. Inter-reader agreement for cancer (GG1-5) vs. benign was excellent (Model-based kappa 0.90, Fleiss' kappa κ = 0.90) and for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (GG2-5 vs. GG0 vs. GG1), it was good (Model-based kappa 0.70, Fleiss' kappa κ 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-reader agreement in grading of MRI-targeted biopsy was good to excellent, while it was fair to moderate for MRI in the same cohort, as previously shown. Importantly, there was wide consensus by pathologists in assigning the contemporary GG on MRI-targeted biopsy suggesting high reproducibility of pathology reporting in the ProScreen trial.

Cancer Detection Rate and Abnormal Interpretation Rate of Prostate MRI Performed for Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To report cancer detection rate (CDR) and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) in prostate MRI performed for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-institution, three-center study included patients who underwent MRI for clinical suspicion of PCa between 2017 and 2021. Patients with known PCa were excluded. Patient-level Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was extracted from the radiology report. AIR was defined as number of abnormal MRI (PI-RADS score 3-5) / total number of MRIs. CDR was defined as number of clinically significant PCa (csPCa: Gleason score ≥7) detected at abnormal MRI / total number of MRI. AIR, CDR, and CDR adjusted for pathology confirmation rate were calculated for each of three centers and pre-MRI biopsy status (biopsy-naive and previous negative biopsy).

RESULTS

A total of 9,686 examinations (8,643 unique patients) were included. AIR, CDR, and CDR adjusted for pathology confirmation rate were 45.4%, 23.8%, and 27.6% for center I; 47.2%, 20.0%, and 22.8% for center II; and 42.3%, 27.2%, and 30.1% for center III, respectively. Pathology confirmation rate ranged from 81.6% to 88.0% across three centers. AIR and CDR for biopsy-naive patients were 45.5% to 52.6% and 24.2% to 33.5% across three centers, respectively, and those for previous negative biopsy were 27.2% to 39.8% and 11.7% to 14.2% across three centers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We reported CDR and AIR in prostate MRI for clinical suspicion of PCa. CDR needs to be adjusted for pathology confirmation rate and pre-MRI biopsy status for interfacility comparison.

Variability in prostate cancer detection among radiologists and urologists using MRI fusion biopsy

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of radiologist and urologist variability on detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsies.

Patients and methods

The Prospective Loyola University MRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort (January 2015 to December 2020) was used to identify men receiving their first MRI and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy for suspected PCa. Clinical, MRI and biopsy data were stratified by radiologist and urologist to evaluate variation in Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) grading, lesion number and cancer detection. Multivariable logistic regression (MVR) models and area under the curve (AUC) comparisons assessed the relative impact of individual radiologists and urologists.

Results

A total of 865 patients (469 biopsy-naïve) were included across 5 urologists and 10 radiologists. Radiologists varied with grading 15.4% to 44.8% of patients with MRI lesions as PI-RADS 3. PCa detection varied significantly by radiologist, from 34.5% to 66.7% (p = 0.003) for PCa and 17.2% to 50% (p = 0.001) for csPCa. Urologists' PCa diagnosis rates varied between 29.2% and 55.8% (p = 0.013) and between 24.6% and 39.8% (p = 0.36) for csPCa. After adjustment for case-mix on MVR, a fourfold to fivefold difference in PCa detection was observed between the highest-performing and lowest-performing radiologist (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.10-0.47, p < 0.001). MVR demonstrated improved AUC for any PCa and csPCa detection when controlling for radiologist variation (p = 0.017 and p = 0.038), but controlling for urologist was not significant (p = 0.22 and p = 0.086). Any PCa detection (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.06-2.55, p = 0.03) and csPCa detection (OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.00-2.48, p = 0.05) improved over time (2018-2020 vs. 2015-2017).

Conclusions

Variability among radiologists in PI-RADS grading is a key area for quality improvement significantly impacting the detection of PCa and csPCa. Variability for performance of MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsies exists by urologist but with less impact on overall detection of csPCa.

The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has shown to be beneficial in detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) and avoiding diagnosis of Non-csPCa (ncsPCa); however, its role in the treatment of biopsy-naïve patients is still under discussion.

METHODS

After identifying predictors for the diagnosis of csPCa via Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis (MLRA), a propensity-score (1:1 nearest neighbor) matched comparison was performed between a Systematic-Only Biopsy (SOB) cohort and a mpMRI-based Combined (systematic + targeted) Biopsy (CB) cohort from two tertiary urologic centers (SOB: Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Crete, Greece; CB: LKH Hall in Tirol, Austria). Only biopsy-naïve patients were included in the study. The study period for the included patients was from February 2018 to July 2023 for the SOB group and from July 2017 to June 2023 for the CB group. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of csPCa (≥ISUP 2); secondary outcomes were overall cancer detection, the added value of targeted biopsy in csPCa detection, and the reduction in ncsPCa diagnosis with CB compared to SOB. To estimate the Average Treatment effect of the Treated groups (ATT), cluster-robust standard errors were used to perform g-computation in the matched sample. p-values < 0.05 with a two-sided 95% confidence interval were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Matching achieved well-balanced groups (each n = 140 for CB and SOB). In the CB group, 65/140 (46.4%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa compared to 44/140 (31.4%) in the SOB group (RR 1.48, 95%-CI: 1.09-2.0, p = 0.01). In the CB group, 4.3% (6/140) and 1.4% (2/140) of csPCa cases were detected with targeted-only and systematic-only biopsy cores, respectively. In the CB group, 22/140 (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with ncsPCa compared to 33/140 (23.6%) in the SOB group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41-1.08, p = 0.1). When comparing SOB to CB (ATT), the marginal OR was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38-0.82, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of csPCa and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.47-1.05, p = 0.085) for the diagnosis of overall cancer (≥ISUP 1).

CONCLUSION

The CB approach was superior to the SOB approach in detecting csPCa, while no additional detection of ncsPCa was seen. Our results support the application of mpMRI for biopsy-naïve patients with suspicions of prostate cancer.

Key learning on the promise and limitations of MRI in prostate cancer screening

MRI retains its ability to reduce the harm of prostate biopsies by decreasing biopsy rates and the detection of indolent cancers in population-based screening studies aiming to find clinically significant prostate cancers. Limitations of low positive predictive values and high reader variability in diagnostic performance require optimisations in patient selection, imaging protocols, interpretation standards, diagnostic thresholds, and biopsy methods. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy could come about through emerging technologies like risk calculators and polygenic risk scores to select men for MRI. Furthermore, artificial intelligence and workflow optimisations focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway, quality control, and assurance measures will improve MRI variability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI significantly reduces harm in prostate cancer screening, lowering unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers. MRI maintains the effective detection of high-grade cancers, thus improving the overall benefit-to-harm ratio in population-based screenings with or without using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for patient selection. KEY POINTS: • The use of MRI enables the harm reduction benefits seen in individual early cancer detection to be extended to both risk-stratified and non-stratified prostate cancer screening populations. • MRI limitations include a low positive predictive value and imperfect reader variability, which require standardising interpretations, biopsy methods, and integration into a quality diagnostic pathway. • Current evidence is based on one-time point use of MRI in screening; MRI effectiveness in multiple rounds of screening is not well-documented.

Creating a novel multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based biopsy strategy for reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The overdiagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) caused by unnecessary prostate biopsy has become a worldwide problem that urgently requires a solution. We aimed to reduce the unnecessary prostate biopsies and increase the detection rate of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) by creating a novel multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-based strategy.

Methods

A total of 1,194 eligible patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsies from January 2018 to December 2022 were included in this retrospective study. Of these patients, 1,080 who received prostate biopsies from January 2018 to July 2022 were regarded as cohort 1 for primary analysis, and 114 patients who received prostate biopsies from August 2022 to December 2022 were collected in cohort 2 for validation. All the mpMRI images were quantitatively evaluated by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS v. 2.1). The diagnostic performances were assessed through the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) and were compared with the DeLong test. Cancer diagnosis-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The primary endpoint of this study was clinically significant PCa with an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥2.

Results

In cohort 1, the results of ROC curves demonstrated that the PI-RADS score had a higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC =0.898 for any-grade PCa; AUC =0.917 for csPCa) than did the other clinical variables (P<0.001). Under the novel mpMRI-based biopsy strategy, all patients with PI-RADS 1 can safely avoid prostate biopsy. For patients with PI-RADS 2, prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) ≥0.3 ng/mL2 and prostate volume <65 mL. As for patients with PI-RADS 3, structured surveillance programs can be a viable option if PSAD <0.3 ng/mL2 and prostate volume ≥65 mL. Finally, patients with a PI-RADS score of 4 and 5 should undergo prostate biopsy due to the high probability of clinically significant PCa. In the validation analysis of cohort 2, 48 patients were placed into a biopsy-spared group with no csPCa cases, while 66 patients were placed in a biopsy-needed group, with an csPCa detection rate of 50.0%. Overall, the novel strategy demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 98.9%, 57.5%, 50.5%, and 99.2%, respectively, for diagnosing csPCa.

Conclusions

An mpMRI-based biopsy strategy can effectively avoid about 40% of prostate biopsies and maintain a high detection rate for clinically significant PCa. It can further provide valuable guidance for patients and physicians in considering the necessity of prostate biopsy.

Longitudinal analysis of T2 relaxation time variations following radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Aim of this paper is to evaluate short and long-term changes in T 2 relaxation times after radiotherapy in patients with low and intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. A total of 24 patients were selected for this retrospective study. Each participant underwent 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging on seven separate occasions: initially after the implantation of gold fiducials, the required step for Cyberknife therapy guidance, followed by MRI scans two weeks post-therapy and monthly thereafter. As part of each MRI scan, the prostate region was manually delineated, and the T 2 relaxation times were calculated for quantitative analysis. The T 2 relaxation times between individual follow-ups were analyzed using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance that revealed a significant difference across all measurements (F (6, 120) = 0.611, p << 0.001). A Bonferroni post hoc test revealed significant differences in median T 2 values between the baseline and subsequent measurements, particularly between pre-therapy (M 0 ) and two weeks post-therapy (M 1 ), as well as during the monthly interval checks (M 2 - M 6 ). Some cases showed a delayed decrease in relaxation times, indicating the prolonged effects of therapy. The changes in T 2 values during the course of radiotherapy can help in monitoring radiotherapy response in unconfirmed patients, quantifying the scarring process, and recognizing the therapy failure.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis with Micro-ultrasound: What We Know now and New Horizons

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed in males. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) with targeted biopsy can detect PCa and is currently the recommended initial test in men at risk for PCa. Micro-Ultrasound (MicroUS) is a novel high-resolution 29-MHz ultrasound with ∼three times greater resolution of conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) resolution. Preliminary data suggest improved accuracy of ultrasound for targeted prostate biopsy. A growing body of evidence has become available supporting MicroUS as a potentially time and cost saving modality for PCa detection, with early results suggesting comparable accuracy to mpMRI. Additionally, microUS allows real-time visualization for accurate targeted biopsy. It is not yet clear whether MicroUS should be used on its own or in combination with mpMRI for prostate cancer detection. The ongoing OPTIMUM randomized controlled trial will help to establish the role of MicroUS in the diagnostic algorithm for the detection of clinically significant (cs)-PCa. Early data also indicate this imaging modality may have a role in local staging (eg, extracapsular extension prediction) and active surveillance of PCa. MicroUS has also the potential to add value to biparametric (bp) MRI, and may represent a promising tool for guidance of focal therapy in the near future.

Comparison in Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Between Microultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy (ExactVu) and Multiparametric Resonance Imaging-guided Prostate Biopsy (Koelis System)

OBJECTIVES

To compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and prostate cancer (PC) and to find out the diagnostic concordance between microultrasound (mUS), a high-resolution imaging system that can identify suspicious prostate lesions and biopsy them in real time, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate fusion biopsies.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, single-blind, single cohort study was conducted involving 80 patients with clinically suspected PC who underwent concomitant mpMRI-guided fusion prostate biopsy (Koelis System) and mUS-guided biopsy (ExactVu System) RESULTS: The detection rate of csPC was slightly higher for image-guided fusion biopsy (21.25% vs 18.75%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .453). There was also no significant difference in overall PC diagnosis (50% vs 51.25%, P = .897). The degree of agreement between the 2 diagnostic techniques for the detection of csPC as assessed by Cohen's Kappa concordance index was satisfactory κ ̂ = 0.676. The degree of International Society of Urological Pathology of targeted biopsies obtained from concordant lesions was also represented by satisfactory concordance with a Kappa index of κ ̂ = 0. 696.

CONCLUSION

mUS-guided biopsy is presented as an effective diagnostic method for the diagnosis of csPC compared to image-guided fusion biopsy. No differences are found in the detection rates of csPC and PC between the 2 strategies and satisfactory concordance is found in terms of histopathological findings.

Artificial intelligence as diagnostic aiding tool in cases of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3: the results of retrospective multi-center cohort study

PURPOSE

To study the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on the diagnostic performance of radiologists in interpreting prostate mpMRI images of the PI-RADS 3 category.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 16 radiologists were invited to interpret prostate mpMRI cases with and without AI. The study included a total of 87 cases initially diagnosed as PI-RADS 3 by radiologists without AI, with 28 cases being clinically significant cancers (csPCa) and 59 cases being non-csPCa. The study compared the diagnostic efficacy between readings without and with AI, the reading time, and confidence levels.

RESULTS

AI changed the diagnosis in 65 out of 87 cases. Among the 59 non-csPCa cases, 41 were correctly downgraded to PI-RADS 1-2, and 9 were incorrectly upgraded to PI-RADS 4-5. For the 28 csPCa cases, 20 were correctly upgraded to PI-RADS 4-5, and 5 were incorrectly downgraded to PI-RADS 1-2. Radiologists assisted by AI achieved higher diagnostic specificity and accuracy than those without AI [0.695 vs 0.000 and 0.736 vs 0.322, both P < 0.001]. Sensitivity with AI was not significantly different from that without AI [0.821 vs 1.000, P = 1.000]. AI reduced reading time significantly compared to without AI (mean: 351 seconds, P < 0.001). The diagnostic confidence score with AI was significantly higher than that without AI (Cohen Kappa: -0.016).

CONCLUSION

With the help of AI, there was an improvement in the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS category 3 cases by radiologists. There is also an increase in diagnostic efficiency and diagnostic confidence.

Prostate cancer detection and segmentation on MRI using non-local mask R-CNN with histopathological ground truth

BACKGROUND

Automatic detection and segmentation of intraprostatic lesions (ILs) on preoperative multiparametric-magnetic resonance images (mp-MRI) can improve clinical workflow efficiency and enhance the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer and is an essential step in dominant intraprostatic lesion boost.

PURPOSE

The goal is to improve the detection and segmentation accuracy of 3D ILs in MRI by a proposed a deep learning (DL)-based algorithm with histopathological ground truth.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 262 patients with in vivo prostate biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) scans and were divided into three cohorts based on their data analysis and annotation. Histopathological ground truth was established by using histopathology images as delineation reference standard on cohort 1, which consisted of 64 patients and was randomly split into 20 training, 12 validation, and 32 testing patients. Cohort 2 consisted of 158 patients with bp-MRI based lesion delineation, and was randomly split into 104 training, 15 validation, and 39 testing patients. Cohort 3 consisted of 40 unannotated patients, used in semi-supervised learning. We proposed a non-local Mask R-CNN and boosted its performance by applying different training techniques. The performance of non-local Mask R-CNN was compared with baseline Mask R-CNN, 3D U-Net and an experienced radiologist's delineation and was evaluated by detection rate, dice similarity coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, and Hausdorff Distance (HD).

RESULTS

The independent testing set consists of 32 patients with histopathological ground truth. With the training technique maximizing detection rate, the non-local Mask R-CNN achieved 80.5% and 94.7% detection rate; 0.548 and 0.604 DSC; 5.72 and 6.36 95 HD (mm); 0.613 and 0.580 sensitivity for ILs of all Gleason Grade groups (GGGs) and clinically significant ILs (GGG > 2), which outperformed baseline Mask R-CNN and 3D U-Net. For clinically significant ILs, the model segmentation accuracy was significantly higher than that of the experienced radiologist involved in the study, who achieved 0.512 DSC (p = 0.04), 8.21 (p = 0.041) 95 HD (mm), and 0.398 (p = 0.001) sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

The proposed DL model achieved state-of-art performance and has the potential to help improve radiotherapy treatment planning and noninvasive prostate cancer diagnosis.

Biparametric Quantitative MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to prospectively investigate a novel quantitative biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to detect prostate cancer (PCa) in biopsy-naïve men. Secondarily, this study reports the accuracy of fractional order calculus (FROC) diffusion and quantitative T2 compared with the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS).

METHODS

This prospective pilot study (NCT04175730) enrolled 50 prostate biopsy-naïve men who met eligibility criteria. All men received 3T MRI with T2 and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (b-values: 50-4,000 s/mm2). Men with PI-RADS lesions ≥3 underwent targeted and systematic prostate biopsy, omitting systematic biopsy cores in peripheral zone lesions. DWI series images were fit to signal decay to calculate ADC (mm2/s) and the FROC model for coefficient DF (mm2/s). The primary end point was detection of Gleason grade group ≥2 (GG≥2) PCa. Receiver operating characteristic regression and area under the curve (AUC) were reported.

RESULTS

Forty-eight men underwent MRI and biopsy. Mean age was 61.5 years (56-68), 29% were White, 52% were African American, mean PSA was 6.0 ng/mL (4.9-8.0), and mean PSA density was 0.14 ng/mL2. In total, 61 PI-RADS ≥3 lesions were targeted for biopsy. GG≥2 PC was found in 7% (1/14) of PI-RADS 3 lesions, 28% (10/36) of PI-RADS 4 lesions, and 36% (4/11) of PI-RADS 5 lesions. The AUC for detection of GG≥2 PC was 0.63 (0.5-0.76) for PI-RADS, 0.82 (0.68-0.96) for ADC, and 0.87 (0.77-0.97) for the FROC model.

CONCLUSION

This small prospective pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a novel quantitative biparametic MRI protocol to detect prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men.

The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review

PURPOSE

Micro-UltraSound (microUS) is a new imaging modality capable of identifying and targeting suspicious areas, which might further increase the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy (PBx). Aim of this review is to provide insights into the usefulness of microUS for the sub-stratification of prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant PCa (i.e., any Gleason score ≥ 7 PCa; csPCa) along with non-organ-confined disease in patients undergoing PBx.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was performed using keywords: prostate cancer diagnosis, prostate cancer diagnosis surveillance, systematic biopsy, target biopsy, micro-ultrasound, and prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound.

RESULTS

MicroUS could significantly improve multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings by adding valuable anatomical and pathological information provided by real-time examination. Furthermore, microUS target biopsy could replace systematic biopsy in clinical practice by reducing the detection of clinically insignificant (ciPCa) and increasing that of csPCa. Finally, microUS may be useful in predicting the presence of non-organ confined PCa before radical prostatectomy and it could also be an effective add-on tool for patient monitoring within the active surveillance program.

CONCLUSION

MicroUS may represent an attractive step forward for the management of csPCa as a complementary or alternative tool to mpMRI. Nevertheless, further longitudinal studies are warranted, and the strength of the evidence is still suboptimal to provide clear recommendations for daily clinical practice.

Inter-reader variability and reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in a multicentre setting

PURPOSE

To assess the inter-reader reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score between readers with varying clinical experience and its reproducibility at assessing imaging quality between different institutions.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we assessed 60 consecutive prostate MRI scans performed at different academic teaching and non-academic hospitals uploaded to our institutes' PACS for second opinion or discussion in case conferences. Anonymized scans were independently reviewed using the PI-QUAL scoring sheet by three readers - two radiologists (with 1 and 12 years Prostate MRI reporting experience), and an experienced MRI technician with interest in image acquisition and quality. All readers were blinded to the site where scans were acquired.

RESULTS

Agreement coefficients between the 3 readers in paired comparison for each individual PI-QUAL score was moderate. When the scans were clustered into 2 groups according to their ability to rule in or rule out clinically significant prostate cancer [i.e., PI-QUAL score 1-3 vs PI-QUAL score 4-5], the Gwet AC1 coefficients between the three readers in paired comparison was good to very good [Gwet AC 1:0.77, 0.67, 0.836 respectively] with agreement percentage of 88.3%, 83.3% and 91.7% respectively. Agreement coefficient was higher between the experienced radiologist and the experienced MRI technician than between the less experienced trainee radiologist and the other two readers. The mean PI-QUAL score provided by each reader for the scans was significantly higher in the academic hospitals (n = 32) compared to the community hospital (n = 28) [experienced radiologist 4.6 vs 2.9; trainee radiologist 4.5 vs 2.4; experienced technologist 4.4 vs 2.4; p value < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

We observed good to very good reproducibility in the assessment of each MRI sequence and when scans were clustered into two groups [PI-QUAL 1-3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5] between readers with varying clinical experience. However, the reproducibility for each single PI-QUAL score between readers was moderate. Better definitions for each PI-QUAL score criteria may further improve reproducibility between readers. Additionally, the mean PI-QUAL score provided by all three readers was significantly higher for scans performed at academic teaching hospitals compared to community hospital.

Impact of 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI in Selecting Men With Low-/Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer for Focal Ablative Therapies

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of multiparametric (mp) MRI to 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI for detecting clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) in men with low-/intermediate-risk PCa being considered for focal ablative therapy (FT), using 2 interpretation schemes, and to assess the rate of exclusion from FT for each modality.

METHODS

This prospective study evaluated men with low- or intermediate-risk PCa, potential candidates for FT based on initial biopsy as per institutional protocol, who underwent 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI. Each modality (mpMRI, PET/MRI using PROMISE classification [PET/MRI PROMISE], and PET/MRI considering any focal lesion on PET as positive [PETFL/MRI]) was assessed independently. All suspicious lesions underwent PET/MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies. Diagnostic performances were calculated and compared using the exact binomial test on paired proportions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four men (median age, 64 years; interquartile range, 60-70 years) were included. Overall, 40 of 67 lesions (60%) identified on mpMRI and/or PET/MRI were malignant, and 34 of 40 lesions (85%) were csPCa (≥6 mm ISUP [International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group] GG1 or ISUP-GG ≥2). On lesion-level analysis, for detecting csPCa, sensitivity appeared higher for PETFL/MRI than mpMRI and PET/MRI PROMISE (97% vs 76% and 79%, respectively [P = 0.02 and 0.03]), whereas specificity was lower (30% vs 85% and 88%, respectively [P < 0.001]). The calculated overall accuracy rates for PETFL/MRI, mpMRI, and PET/MRI PROMISE were 64%, 81%, and 84%, respectively. PETFL/MRI, mpMRI, and PET/MRI PROMISE excluded 10 of 34 (29%), 7 of 34 (21%), and 6 of 34 (18%) men from FT, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI excluded nearly 30% of patients with low-/intermediate-risk PCa from FT, with a potential role in decreasing selection failure. Compared with mpMRI, PET/MRI had a higher sensitivity for detecting csPCa in men who were candidates for FT.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03149861.

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI- and microultrasound-targeted biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion: a single-institutional study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)- and microultrasound (microUS)-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant (cs) PCa among men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS 5) lesions and to compare this combined TBx (CTBx) strategy with CTBx plus systemic biopsy (SBx).

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-six biopsy-naïve patients with PI-RADS 5 lesion at multiparametric MRI undergoing CTBx plus SBx were retrospectively evaluated. Analysis of diagnostic performance of microUS-TBx, MRI-TBx, CTBx, SBx and combined CTBx plus SBx was performed. Cost (downgrade, upgrade and biopsy core) to effectiveness (detection rate) was compared.

RESULTS

CTBx achieved a comparable detection rate to CTBx plus SBx in diagnosis of PCa and csPCa (PCa: 78.7% [107/136] vs 79.4% [108/136]; csPCa: 67.6% [92/136] vs 67.6% [92/136]; p > 0.05) and outperformed SBx (PCa: 58.8% [80/136]; csPCa: 47.8% [65/136]; p < 0.001). Using CTB would have avoided 41.1% (56/136) unnecessary SBx, without missing any csPCa. The rate of any upgrading or csPCa upgrading was significantly higher by SBx than by CTBx [33/65 (50.8%) vs 17/65 (26.1%) and 20/65 (30.8%) vs 4/65 (6.15%), respectively, p < 0.05]. Considering csPCa detection rate, microUS showed high sensitivity and positive predictive value (94.6%, 87.9%, respectively), with lower specificity and negative predictive value (25.0% and 44.4%, respectively). At multivariable logistic regression models, positive microUS was identified as an independent predictor of csPCa (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

A combined microUS/MRI-TBx approach could be the ideal imaging tool for characterizing primary disease in PI-RADS five patients, allowing SBx to be avoided.

3-D Transducer Mounted Shear Wave Absolute Vibro-Elastography: Proof of Concept

Quantitative tissue stiffness characterization using ultrasound (US) has been shown to improve prostate cancer (PCa) detection in multiple studies. Shear wave absolute vibro-elastography (SWAVE) allows quantitative and volumetric assessment of tissue stiffness using external multifrequency excitation. This article presents a proof of concept of a first-of-a-kind 3-D hand-operated endorectal SWAVE system designed to be used during systematic prostate biopsy. The system is developed with a clinical US machine, requiring only an external exciter that can be mounted directly to the transducer. Subsector acquisition of radio frequency (RF) data allows imaging of shear waves with a high effective frame rate (up to 250 Hz). The system was characterized using eight different quality assurance phantoms. Due to the invasive nature of prostate imaging, at this early stage of development, validation of in vivo human tissue was instead carried out by intercostally scanning the livers of n = 7 healthy volunteers. The results are compared with 3-D magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and an existing 3-D SWAVE system with a matrix array transducer (M-SWAVE). High correlations were found with MRE (99% in phantoms, 94% in liver data) and with M-SWAVE (99% in phantoms, 98% in liver data).

Theranostic Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Things Understood and Not Understood

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the benefits of theranostic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (T-RARP) for clinically highly suspicious prostate cancer (PCa) without proven biopsies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between February 2016 and December 2020, we included men with clinically highly suspicious PCa in this study. They were assessed to have possible localized PCa without any initial treatments, and were categorized into previous benign biopsies or without biopsies. Furthermore, another group of malignant biopsies with RARP in the same time frame was adopted as the control group. The endpoints were to compare the oncological outcome and functional outcome between malignant biopsies with RARP and T-RARP. p < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

We included 164 men with proven malignant biopsies treated with RARP as the control group. For T-RARP, we included 192 men. Among them, 129 were preoperatively benign biopsies, and 63 had no biopsies before T-RARP. Approximately 75% of men in the T-RARP group had malignant pathology in their final reports, and the other 25% had benign pathology. T-RARP provides several oncological advantages, such as a higher initial pathological T stage, lower Gleason grade, and lower odds of positive surgical margins. However, the biochemical recurrence rates were not significantly decreased. From our cohort, T-RARP (odds ratio with 95% confidence interval; erectile recovery: 3.19 (1.84-5.52), p < 0.001; continence recovery: 2.25 (1.46-3.48), p < 0.001) could result in better recovery of functional outcomes than malignant biopsies with RARP.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinically highly suspicious PCa, T-RARP was able to detect around 75% of PCa cases and preserved their functional outcomes maximally. However, in 25% of men with benign pathology, approximately 6% would have incontinence and 10% would have erectile impairment. This part should be sufficiently informed of the potential groups considering T-RARP.

Hospital encounters and associated costs of prostate evaluation for clinically important disease MRI vs. standard evaluation procedures (PRECISE) study from a provincial-payer perspective

INTRODUCTION

Systematic transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy has been the standard diagnostic tool for prostate cancer (PCa) but is subject to limitations, such as a high false-negative rate of cancer detection. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to biopsy is emerging as an alternative diagnostic procedure for PCa. The PRECISE study found that MRI followed by a targeted biopsy was more accurately able to identify clinically significant cancer than TRUS biopsy.

METHODS

PRECISE study patients recruited in Ontario between January 2017 and November 2019 were linked to various Ontario provincial administrative databases available at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (ICES ) to determine health resources used, associated costs, and hospitalizations in the 14 days after biopsy. Costs are presented in 2021 CAD.

RESULTS

A total of 281 males were included in this study, with 48.4% of the patients in the TRUS biopsy group, 28.1% in the MRI+, and 23.5% in the MRI- group. Twenty-one patients (15%) from the TRUS biopsy group were seen at a hospital in the 14 days after their biopsy compared to fewer than five patients (6%) from the MRI+ group. The mean per person per year (PPPY) costs for the TRUS and all MRI groups (MRI- and MRI+) were $7828 and $8525, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the TRUS biopsy group experienced more hospital encounters compared to patients who received an MRI prior to their biopsy. This economic analysis suggests that MRI imaging prior to biopsy is not associated with a significant increase in costs.

Advancements in MRI-Based Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Future Prospects

The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become a common technique used in guiding biopsy and developing treatment plans for prostate lesions. While this technique is effective, non-invasive methods such as radiomics have gained popularity for extracting imaging features to develop predictive models for clinical tasks. The aim is to minimize invasive processes for improved management of prostate cancer (PCa). This study reviews recent research progress in MRI-based radiomics for PCa, including the radiomics pipeline and potential factors affecting personalized diagnosis. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with medical imaging is also discussed, in line with the development trend of radiogenomics and multi-omics. The survey highlights the need for more data from multiple institutions to avoid bias and generalize the predictive model. The AI-based radiomics model is considered a promising clinical tool with good prospects for application.

Prostate Cancer and Its Mimics-A Pictorial Review

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) is gaining wider recommendations for diagnosing and following up on prostate cancer. However, despite the high accuracy of mpMRI, false positive and false negative results are reported. Some of these may be related to normal anatomic structures, benign lesions that may mimic cancer, or poor-quality images that hamper interpretation. The aim of this review is to discuss common potential pitfalls in the interpretation of mpMRI.

METHODS

mpMRI of the prostates was performed on 3T MRI scanners (Philips Achieva or Siemens Magnetom Vida) according to European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines and technical requirements.

RESULTS

This pictorial review discusses normal anatomical structures such as the anterior fibromuscular stroma, periprostatic venous plexus, central zone, and benign conditions such as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), post-biopsy hemorrhage, prostatitis, and abscess that may imitate prostate cancer, as well as the appearance of prostate cancer occurring in these locations. Furthermore, suggestions on how to avoid these pitfalls are provided, and the impact of image quality is also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of accelerating prostate mpMRI and high demand for high-quality interpretation of the scans, radiologists should be aware of these potential pitfalls to improve their diagnostic accuracy.

PI-RADS 3 score: A retrospective experience of clinically significant prostate cancer detection

Rationale and objectives

The study aims to propose an optimal workflow in patients with a PI-RADS 3 (PR-3) assessment category (AC) through determining the timing and type of pathology interrogation used for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in these men based upon a 5-year retrospective review in a large academic medical center.

Materials and methods

This United States Health Insurance Probability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study included men without prior csPCa diagnosis who received PR-3 AC on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI). Subsequent incidence and time to csPCa diagnosis and number/type of prostate interventions was recorded. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test and continuous data using ANOVA omnibus F-test.

Results

Our cohort of 3238 men identified 332 who received PR-3 as their highest AC on MRI, 240 (72.3%) of whom had pathology follow-up within 5 years. csPCa was detected in 76/240 (32%) and non-csPCa in 109/240 (45%) within 9.0 ± 10.6 months. Using a non-targeted trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy as the initial approach (n = 55), another diagnostic procedure was required to diagnose csPCa in 42/55 (76.4%) of men, compared with 3/21(14.3%) men with an initial MR targeted-biopsy approach (n = 21); (p < 0.0001). Those with csPCa had higher median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density, and lower median prostate volume (p < 0.003) compared with non-csPCa/no PCa.

Conclusion

Most patients with PR-3 AC underwent prostate pathology exams within 5 years, 32% of whom were found to have csPCa within 1 year of MRI, most often with a higher PSA density and a prior non-csPCa diagnosis. Addition of a targeted biopsy approach initially reduced the need for a second biopsy to reach a for csPCa diagnosis. Thus, a combination of systematic and targeted biopsy is advised in men with PR-3 and a co-existing abnormal PSA and PSA density.

Combination of fusion guided multiparametric MRI-transrectal US with systematic biopsy of the prostate for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: A prospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of fusion guided multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy versus systematic biopsy of the prostate in patients with suspicion of prostate cancer.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions or higher underwent fusion guided targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. Histology of samples was correlated with PI-RADS score and biopsy method for each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 81/185 (43.8%) cases positive for cancer were detected; 23/81 (28.4%) cases with clinically insignificant prostate cancer-insPCa and 58/81 (71.6%) cases with clinically significant prostate cancer-csPCa. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall detection of adenocarcinomas between methods (p = .035, McNemar test). Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference in the detection of insPCa between the two methods (p = .004, McNemar test). Systematic biopsy detected 13 patients with insPCa more (14.4%) than the targeted biopsy method. However, there is no statistical difference in the detection rate of csPCa between the two methods (p = 1, McNemar test). When both techniques were combined more cases of csPCa were detected.

CONCLUSION

The combined implementation of fusion-guided targeted mpMRI-TRUS and systematic biopsy of the prostate provides higher detection number of csPCa, compared to each method alone. The potential of fusion-guided mpMRI-TRUS biopsy of the prostate needs to be further assessed since each method has its limitations; therefore, systematic prostate biopsy still plays an important role in clinical practice.

PI-RADS: Where Next?

Prostate MRI plays an important role in the clinical management of localized prostate cancer, mainly assisting in biopsy decisions and guiding biopsy procedures. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has been available to radiologists since 2012, with the most up-to-date and actively used version being PI-RADS version 2.1. This review article discusses the current use of PI-RADS, including its limitations and controversies, and summarizes research that aims to improve future iterations of this system.

A multicenter study of artificial intelligence-aided software for detecting visible clinically significant prostate cancer on mpMRI

BACKGROUND

AI-based software may improve the performance of radiologists when detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). This study aims to compare the performance of radiologists in detecting MRI-visible csPCa on MRI with and without AI-based software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 480 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) images were retrospectively collected from eleven different MR devices, with 349 csPCa lesions in 180 (37.5%) cases. The csPCa areas were annotated based on pathology. Sixteen radiologists from four hospitals participated in reading. Each radiologist was randomly assigned to 30 cases and diagnosed twice. Half cases were interpreted without AI, and the other half were interpreted with AI. After four weeks, the cases were read again in switched mode. The mean diagnostic performance was compared using sensitivity and specificity on lesion level and patient level. The median reading time and diagnostic confidence were assessed.

RESULTS

On lesion level, AI-aided improved the sensitivity from 40.1% to 59.0% (18.9% increased; 95% confidence interval (CI) [11.5, 26.1]; p < .001). On patient level, AI-aided improved the specificity from 57.7 to 71.7% (14.0% increase, 95% CI [6.4, 21.4]; p < .001) while preserving the sensitivity (88.3% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.06). AI-aided reduced the median reading time of one case by 56.3% from 423 to 185 s (238-s decrease, 95% CI [219, 260]; p < .001), and the median diagnostic confidence score was increased by 10.3% from 3.9 to 4.3 (0.4-score increase, 95% CI [0.3, 0.5]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

AI software improves the performance of radiologists by reducing false positive detection of prostate cancer patients and also improving reading times and diagnostic confidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study involves the process of data collection, randomization and crossover reading procedure.

[Systematic or targeted fusion-guided biopsy]

BACKGROUND

Early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with a high risk for detecting low-risk disease. In the primary biopsy indication, systematic biopsy leads to an increased detection of clinically insignificant PCa, and significant prostate cancers are not detected with sufficient sensitivity, especially without prior magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Similar data have recently become available for PCa screening.

OBJECTIVES

In light of the current literature, this article aims to discuss the data on systematic and combined targeted and systematic multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-guided fusion biopsy to improve PCa diagnosis in clinically suspected cancer even in screening using multivariable risk stratification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature review on mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy (TRUS: transrectal ultrasonography) for tumor detection in suspected prostate cancer and PCa screening was performed.

RESULTS

Multiparametric MRI as a reflex test after prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination (PSA cut-off 4 ng/ml) in combination with targeted biopsy alone reduces the detection of clinically nonsignificant tumors in early detection by half. On the other hand, in the form of a target saturation or in combination with a systematic biopsy, the sensitivity for the detection of cancers of International Society of Urogenital Pathology (ISUP) grade groups 2 or higher can be improved. Similar results are also shown in PCa screening with a PSA cut-off of 3 ng/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for performing a targeted fusion biopsy alone is currently insufficient. Therefore, the combination of mpMRI-guided targeted and systematic biopsy continues to be the recommended standard for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Expanding inclusion criteria for active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a machine learning approach

PURPOSE

To develop new selection criteria for active surveillance (AS) in intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study including patients from 14 referral centers who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI, image-guided biopsies and radical prostatectomy. The cohort included biopsy-naive IR PCa patients who met the following inclusion criteria: Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1-2, PSA < 20 ng/mL, and cT1-cT2 tumors. We relied on a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to predict adverse pathological features (i.e., ≥ pT3a and/or pN + and/or GGG ≥ 3).

RESULTS

A total of 594 patients with IR PCa were included, of whom 220 (37%) had adverse features. PI-RADS score (weight:0.726), PSA density (weight:0.158), and clinical T stage (weight:0.116) were selected as the most informative risk factors to classify patients according to their risk of adverse features, leading to the creation of five risk clusters. The adverse feature rates for cluster #1 (PI-RADS ≤ 3 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #2 (PI-RADS 4 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #3 (PI-RADS 1-4 and PSA density ≥ 0.15), cluster #4 (normal DRE and PI-RADS 5), and cluster #5 (abnormal DRE and PI-RADS 5) were 11.8, 27.9, 37.3, 42.7, and 65.1%, respectively. Compared with the current inclusion criteria, extending the AS criteria to clusters #1 + #2 or #1 + #2 + #3 would increase the number of eligible patients (+ 60 and + 253%, respectively) without increasing the risk of adverse pathological features.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed model has the potential to expand the number of patients eligible for AS without compromising oncologic outcomes. Prospective validation is warranted.

A prostate biopsy risk calculator based on MRI: development and comparison of the Prospective Loyola University multiparametric MRI (PLUM) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculator (RC) incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and to compare its performance with that of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) RC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men without a PCa diagnosis receiving mpMRI before biopsy in the Prospective Loyola University mpMRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort (2015-2020) were included. Data from a separate institution were used for external validation. The primary outcome was diagnosis of no cancer, grade group (GG)1 PCa, and clinically significant (cs)PCa (≥GG2). Binary logistic regression was used to explore standard clinical and mpMRI variables (prostate volume, Prostate Imaging-Reporting Data System [PI-RADS] version 2.0 lesions) with the final PLUM RC, based on a multinomial logistic regression model. Receiver-operating characteristic curve, calibration curves, and decision-curve analysis were evaluated in the training and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1010 patients were included for development (N = 674 training [47.8% PCa, 30.9% csPCa], N = 336 internal validation) and 371 for external validation. The PLUM RC outperformed the PBCG RC in the training (area under the curve [AUC] 85.9% vs 66.0%; P < 0.001), internal validation (AUC 88.2% vs 67.8%; P < 0.001) and external validation (AUC 83.9% vs 69.4%; P < 0.001) cohorts for csPCa detection. The PBCG RC was prone to overprediction while the PLUM RC was well calibrated. At a threshold probability of 15%, the PLUM RC vs the PBCG RC could avoid 13.8 vs 2.7 biopsies per 100 patients without missing any csPCa. At a cost level of missing 7.5% of csPCa, the PLUM RC could have avoided 41.0% (566/1381) of biopsies compared to 19.1% (264/1381) for the PBCG RC. The PLUM RC compared favourably with the Stanford Prostate Cancer Calculator (SPCC; AUC 84.1% vs 81.1%; P = 0.002) and the MRI-European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) RC (AUC 84.5% vs 82.6%; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The mpMRI-based PLUM RC significantly outperformed the PBCG RC and compared favourably with other mpMRI-based RCs. A large proportion of biopsies could be avoided using the PLUM RC in shared decision making while maintaining optimal detection of csPCa.

Exploring new frontiers in prostate cancer research: Report from the 2022 Coffey-Holden prostate cancer academy meeting

INTRODUCTION

The 2022 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy (CHPCA) Meeting, "Exploring New Frontiers in Prostate Cancer Research," was held from June 23 to 26, 2022, at the University of California, Los Angeles, Luskin Conference Center, in Los Angeles, CA.

METHODS

The CHPCA Meeting is an annual discussion-oriented scientific conference organized by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, that focuses on emerging and next-step topics deemed critical for making the next major advances in prostate cancer research and clinical care. The 2022 CHPCA Meeting included 35 talks over 10 sessions and was attended by 73 academic investigators.

RESULTS

Major topic areas discussed at the meeting included: prostate cancer diversity and disparities, the impact of social determinants on research and patient outcomes, leveraging real-world and retrospective data, development of artificial intelligence biomarkers, androgen receptor (AR) signaling biology and new strategies for targeting AR, features of homologous recombination deficient prostate cancer, and future directions in immunotherapy and nuclear theranostics.

DISCUSSION

This article summarizes the scientific presentations from the 2022 CHPCA Meeting, with the goal that dissemination of this knowledge will contribute to furthering global prostate cancer research efforts.

Systematic Biopsies as a Complement to Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies: "To Be or Not To Be"?

In light of recent prostate cancer screening programme proposed by the European Association of Urology, there is an urgent need to optimise detection of clinically significant cancer while minimising overdiagnosis. This may be achieved by omitting systematic biopsies while ensuring quality control for diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies.

Diagnostic performance of transperineal prostate targeted biopsy alone according to the PI-RADS score based on bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance of transperineal targeted biopsy (TB) or systematic biopsy (SB) alone based on combined TB+SB and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score.

Materials and methods

This study included 1077 men who underwent transperineal bi-parametric (bp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion TB+SB (bpMRI-US FTSB) between April 2019 and March 2022. To compare the performance of each modality (TB, SB, and combined TB+SB) with the RP specimen (as the standard) for detecting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted.

Results

PCa was detected in 581 of 1077 men (53.9%) using bpMRI-US FTSB. CsPCa was detected in 383 of 1077 men (35.6%), 17 of 285 (6.0%) with PI-RADS 0 to 2, 35 of 277 (12.6%) with PI-RADS 3, 134 of 274 (48.9%) with PI-RADS 4, and 197 of 241 (81.7%) with PI-RADS 5, respectively. The additional diagnostic value of TB vs. SB compared to combined TB+SB for diagnosing csPCa were 4.3% vs. 3.2% (p=0.844), 20.4% vs 5.1% (p<0.001), and 20.3% vs. 0.7% (p<0.001) with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively. TB alone showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance for csPCa with combined TB+SB based on RP specimens in patients with PI-RADS 5 (p=0.732).

Conclusion

A need for addition of SB to TB in patients with PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions, however, TB alone may be performed without affecting the management of patients with PI-RADS 5.

Automated Patient-level Prostate Cancer Detection with Quantitative Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but the subjective Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) system and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are inconsistent. Restriction spectrum imaging (RSI) is an advanced diffusion-weighted MRI technique that yields a quantitative imaging biomarker for csPCa called the RSI restriction score (RSI_rs).

Objective

To evaluate RSI_rs for automated patient-level detection of csPCa.

Design setting and participants

We retrospectively studied all patients (n = 151) who underwent 3 T mpMRI and RSI (a 2-min sequence on a clinical scanner) for suspected prostate cancer at University of California San Diego during 2017-2019 and had prostate biopsy within 180 d of MRI.

Intervention

We calculated the maximum RSI_rs and minimum ADC within the prostate, and obtained PI-RADS v2.1 from medical records.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We compared the performance of RSI_rs, ADC, and PI-RADS for the detection of csPCa (grade group ≥2) on the best available histopathology (biopsy or prostatectomy) using the area under the curve (AUC) with two-tailed α = 0.05. We also explored whether the combination of PI-RADS and RSI_rs might be superior to PI-RADS alone and performed subset analyses within the peripheral and transition zones.

Results and limitations

AUC values for ADC, RSI_rs, and PI-RADS were 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.58), 0.78 (0.70, 0.85), and 0.77 (0.70, 0.84), respectively. RSI_rs and PI-RADS were each superior to ADC for patient-level detection of csPCa (p < 0.0001). RSI_rs alone was comparable with PI-RADS (p = 0.8). The combination of PI-RADS and RSI_rs had an AUC of 0.85 (0.78, 0.91) and was superior to either PI-RADS or RSI_rs alone (p < 0.05). Similar patterns were seen in the peripheral and transition zones.

Conclusions

RSI_rs is a promising quantitative marker for patient-level csPCa detection, warranting a prospective study.

Patient summary

We evaluated a rapid, advanced prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique called restriction spectrum imaging to see whether it could give an automated score that predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The automated score worked about as well as expert radiologists' interpretation. The combination of the radiologists' scores and automated score might be better than either alone.

Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only

BACKGROUND

Screening for prostate cancer is burdened by a high rate of overdiagnosis. The most appropriate algorithm for population-based screening is unknown.

METHODS

We invited 37,887 men who were 50 to 60 years of age to undergo regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Participants with a PSA level of 3 ng per milliliter or higher underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate; one third of the participants were randomly assigned to a reference group that underwent systematic biopsy as well as targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions shown on MRI. The remaining participants were assigned to the experimental group and underwent MRI-targeted biopsy only. The primary outcome was clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of 3+3. The secondary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of at least 3+4. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the men who were invited to undergo screening, 17,980 (47%) participated in the trial. A total of 66 of the 11,986 participants in the experimental group (0.6%) received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, as compared with 72 of 5994 participants (1.2%) in the reference group, a difference of -0.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.4; relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.64; P<0.001). The relative risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in the experimental group as compared with the reference group was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.1). Clinically significant cancer that was detected only by systematic biopsy was diagnosed in 10 participants in the reference group; all cases were of intermediate risk and involved mainly low-volume disease that was managed with active surveillance. Serious adverse events were rare (<0.1%) in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The avoidance of systematic biopsy in favor of MRI-directed targeted biopsy for screening and early detection in persons with elevated PSA levels reduced the risk of overdiagnosis by half at the cost of delaying detection of intermediate-risk tumors in a small proportion of patients. (Funded by Karin and Christer Johansson's Foundation and others; GÖTEBORG-2 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN94604465.).

Diagnosis and Pathologic Reporting of Prostate Cancer in the Era of MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy

Historically, the detection of prostate cancer relied upon a systematic yet random sampling of the prostate by transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. This approach was a nontargeted technique that led to the under detection of cancers at biopsy and the upgrading of cancers at radical prostatectomy. Multiparametric MRI-targeted prostate biopsy allows for an image-directed approach to the identification of prostate cancer. MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate is superior for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. As this technique has become more prevalent among urologists, pathologists need to recognize how this development impacts cancer diagnosis and reporting.

Prostate MRI versus PSA screening for prostate cancer detection (the MVP Study): a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare prostate cancer detection rates between patients undergoing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN

Phase III open-label randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Single tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Men 50 years of age and older with no history of PSA screening for ≥3 years, a negative digital rectal exam and no prior prostate biopsy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were recommended to undergo a prostate biopsy if their PSA was ≥2.6 ng/mL (PSA arm) or if they had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 (MRI arm). Patients underwent an end-of-study PSA in the MRI arm.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy. Prostate biopsy rates and the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 525 patients were randomised, with 266 in the PSA arm and 248 in the MRI arm. Due to challenges with accrual and study execution during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was terminated early. In the PSA arm, 48 patients had an abnormal PSA and 28 (58%) agreed to undergo a prostate biopsy. In the MRI arm, 25 patients had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 and 24 (96%) agreed to undergo a biopsy. The relative risk for MRI to recommend a prostate biopsy was 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.82, p=0.005), compared with PSA. The cancer detection rate for patients in the PSA arm was 29% (8 of 28) vs 63% (15 of 24, p=0.019) in the MRI arm, with a higher proportion of clinically significant cancer detected in the MRI arm (73% vs 50%). The relative risk for detecting cancer and clinically significant with MRI compared with PSA was 1.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.38, p=0.14) and 2.77 (95% CI 0.89 to 8.59, p=0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate MRI as a stand-alone screening test reduced the rate of prostate biopsy. The number of clinically significant cancers detected was higher in the MRI arm, but this did not reach statistical significance. Due to early termination, the study was underpowered. More patients were willing to follow recommendations for prostate biopsy based on MRI results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02799303.

Comparison of Micro-US and Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-Naive Men

Background Multiparametric MRI has led to increased detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Micro-US is being investigated for csPCa detection. Purpose To compare multiparametric MRI and micro-US in detecting csPCa (grade group ≥2) and to determine the proportion of MRI nodules visible at micro-US for real-time targeted biopsy. Materials and methods This prospective, single-center trial enrolled biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) between May 2019 and September 2020. All patients underwent multiparametric MRI followed by micro-US; findings at both were interpreted in a blinded fashion, followed by targeted biopsy and nontargeted systematic biopsy using micro-US. Proportions were compared using the exact McNemar test. The differences in proportions were calculated. Results Ninety-four men (median age, 61 years; IQR, 57-68 years) were included. MRI- and micro-US-targeted biopsy depicted csPCa in 37 (39%) and 33 (35%) of the 94 men, respectively (P = .22); clinically insignificant PCa in 14 (15%) and 15 (16%) (P > .99); and cribriform and/or intraductal PCa in 14 (15%) and 13 (14%) (P > .99). The MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy pathway depicted csPCa in 38 of the 94 (40%) men. The addition of nontargeted systematic biopsy to MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy did not enable identification of any additional men with csPCa but did help identify nine additional men with clinically insignificant PCa (P = .04). Biopsy was avoided in 32 of the 94 men (34%) with MRI and nine of the 94 men (10%) with micro-US (P < .001). Among 93 MRI targets, 62 (67%) were prospectively visible at micro-US. Conclusion MRI and micro-US showed similar rates of prostate cancer detection, but more biopsies were avoided with the MRI pathway than with micro-US, with no benefit of adding nontargeted systematic biopsy to the MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy pathway. Most MRI lesions were prospectively visible at micro-US, allowing real-time targeted biopsy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT03938376 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Urinary PCA3 a Superior Diagnostic Biomarker for Prostate Cancer among Ghanaian Men

Introduction. Prostate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in men. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been the biomarker of choice for screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, inefficiencies exist with its diagnostic capabilities. This study thus evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic potential of urinary PCA3 as an alternative biomarker for prostate cancer in the Ghanaian population. Methods. A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted at the Urology Department of the 37 Military Hospital, Accra, Ghana. A total of 237 participants aged 40 years and above with any form of suspected prostate disorder were recruited into the study after written informed consent was obtained. Total serum PSA levels was measured using the electrochemiluminescence method and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic core needle biopsies were obtained from each study participant. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of serum PSA, DRE, and PCA3 as diagnostic tools for prostate cancer. These three diagnostic tools were also evaluated in various combinations to ascertain the combinations with the best diagnostic accuracy. Results. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 26.6% of the participants. Benign prostate hyperplasia and prostatitis were diagnosed in 48.5% and 24.9% participants, respectively. DRE had a sensitivity of 93.7% and a specificity of 12.1%. PSA had a sensitivity of 92.1% and a specificity of 16.1%. PCA3 had a sensitivity of 57.1% and a specificity of 85.6% and showed a better accuracy ( $\text{AUC}=83.0$ ) compared to PSA ( $\text{AUC}=60.0$ ) and DRE ( $\text{AUC}=65.0$ ) as individual diagnostic tools. The combination of DRE+PCA3 score had the best diagnostic accuracy ( $\text{AUC}=0.80$ ) with a sensitivity and specificity of 60.3% and 80.5%, respectively. Conclusion. The urinary PCA3 assay showed a better diagnostic performance compared to serum PSA and DRE. PCA3 as a stand-alone and in combination with DRE could be a suitable complimentary marker in diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

[Image-guided biopsy of the prostate gland]

The recommendations on carrying out a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the primary diagnostics and during active surveillance of prostate cancer, include as a consequence an image-guided sampling from conspicuous areas. In doing so, the information on the localization provided by mpMRI is used for a targeted biopsy of the area suspected of being a tumor. The targeted sampling is mainly performed under sonographic control and after fusion of MRI and ultrasound but can also be (mostly in special cases) carried out directly in the MRI scanner. In an ultrasound-guided biopsy, it is vital to coregister the MR images with the ultrasound images (segmentation of the contour of the prostate and registration of suspect findings). This coregistration can either be carried out cognitively (transfer by the person performing the biopsy alone) or software based. Each method shows specific advantages and disadvantages in the prioritization between diagnostic accuracy and resource expenditure.