Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer

Targeted biopsy added to systematic biopsy improves cancer detection in prostate cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound targeted biopsy has frequently been used together with a 12-core systematic biopsy for prostate cancer screening in the past few years. However, the efficacy of targeted biopsy compared to systematic biopsy, as well as its clinical-histologic correlation, has been assessed by a limited number of studies and is further investigated in this study.

DESIGN

We collected 960 cases with both targeted and systematic prostate biopsies from 04/2019 to 04/2022 (Table 1). We compared cancer detection rates between targeted and systematic prostate biopsies in different grade groups. Correlations with the size of prostate lesions, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale were also analyzed for each of these biopsy methods.

RESULTS

Among the 960 men who underwent targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy, prostatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 652 (67.9%) cases. 489 (50.9%) cases were diagnosed by targeted biopsy and 576 (60.0%) cases were diagnosed by systematic biopsy. In the 384 cases diagnosed negative by systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy identified cancer in 76 (8%) cases. Systematic biopsy was able to detect 163 cancer cases that were missed by targeted biopsy. Systematic biopsy detected more grade group 1 cancers compared to targeted biopsy. However, for higher grade cancers, the differences between the cancer detection rates of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy became negligible. Targeted biopsy upgraded the grade group categorized by systematic biopsy in several cases (3.8%, 7.0%, 2.6%, 1.1% and 0.9% in Grade Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively). Targeted biopsy was more likely to detect cancer in larger lesions (13.17 mm VS 11.41 mm, P=0.0056) and for higher PI-RADS scales (4.19 VS 3.68, P<0.0001). The cancers detected by targeted biopsy also had higher PSA levels (10.38 ng/ml VS 6.39 ng/ml, P=0.0026).

CONCLUSION

Targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy improved cancer detection rate compared to systematic biopsy alone. Targeted biopsy is not more sensitive for grade groups 1, 4, or 5 cancers but is as sensitive as systematic biopsy for detecting grade group 2 and 3 cancers. Targeted biopsy is more effective at detecting cancers when patients have larger lesions, higher PI-RADS scales, and higher PSA levels.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Biopsy in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The underlying premise of prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) is that cancers likely to metastasize will be recognized and eliminated before cancer-related disease can ensue. Our study was designed to determine the prostate cancer upgrading rate when biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRGBx) is used before entry and during AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cohort included 519 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who enrolled in prospective studies (NCT00949819 and NCT00102544) between February 2008 and February 2020. Subjects were preliminarily diagnosed with Gleason Grade Group (GG) 1 cancer; AS began when subsequent MRGBx confirmed GG1 or GG2. Participants underwent confirmatory MRGBx (targeted and systematic) followed by surveillance MRGBx approximately every 12 to 24 months. The primary outcome was tumor upgrading to ≥GG3.

RESULTS

Upgrading to ≥GG3 was found in 92 men after a median followup of 4.8 years (IQR 3.1-6.5) after confirmatory MRGBx. Upgrade-free probability after 5 years was 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.88). Cancer detected in a magnetic resonance imaging lesion at confirmatory MRGBx increased risk of subsequent upgrading during AS (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-6.0), as did presence of GG2 (HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-8.2) In men who upgraded ≥GG3 during AS, upgrading was detected by targeted cores only in 27%, systematic cores only in 25% and both in 47%. In 63 men undergoing prostatectomy, upgrading from MRGBx was found in only 5 (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

When AS begins and follows with MRGBx (targeted and systematic), upgrading rate (≥GG3) is greater when tumor is initially present within a magnetic resonance imaging lesion or when pathology is GG2 than when these features are absent.

Why Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Miss Clinically Significant Cancer?

PURPOSE

Multiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy.

RESULTS

Over the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS^TM) score was associated with having clinically significant cancer missed on MRI-targeted biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

While uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.

Prognostic Features of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy Based on Multiparametric MRI and Immunohistochemistry Analysis of MRI-guided Biopsy Specimens

Background Although prostate MRI is routinely used for the detection and staging of localized prostate cancer, imaging-based assessment and targeted molecular sampling for risk stratification are an active area of research. Purpose To evaluate features of preoperative MRI and MRI-guided biopsy immunohistochemistry (IHC) findings associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer after surgery. Materials and Methods In this retrospective case-control study, patients underwent multiparametric MRI before MRI-guided biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy between 2008 and 2016. Lesions were retrospectively scored with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) (version 2) by radiologists who were blinded to the clinical-pathologic results. The IHC staining, including stains for the ETS-related gene, phosphatase and tensin homolog, androgen receptor, prostate specific antigen, and p53, was performed with targeted biopsy specimens of the index lesion (highest suspicion at MRI and pathologic grade) and scored by pathologists who were blinded to clinical-pathologic outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate associations with recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results The median RFS was 31.7 months (range, 1-101 months) for 39 patients (median age, 62 years; age range, 47-76 years) without BCR and 14.6 months (range, 1-61 months) for 40 patients (median age, 59 years; age range, 47-73 years) with BCR. MRI features that showed a significant relationship with the RFS interval included an index lesion with a PI-RADS score of 5 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; 95% CI: 1.05, 4.21; P = .04); index lesion burden, defined as ratio of index lesion volume to prostate volume (HR, 1.55; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.1; P = .003); and suspicion of extraprostatic extension (EPE) (HR, 2.18; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.2; P = .02). Presurgical multivariable analysis indicated that suspicion of EPE at MRI (adjusted HR, 2.19; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.3; P = .02) and p53 stain intensity (adjusted HR, 2.22; 95% CI: 1.0, 4.7; P = .04) were significantly associated with RFS. Conclusion MRI features, including Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, index lesion burden, extraprostatic extension, and preoperative guided biopsy p53 immunohistochemistry stain intensity are associated with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer after surgery. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Costa in this issue.

Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.

Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions' impact on the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of MRI for prostate cancer (PC) and to derive the prevalence of PC within each PI-RADS category.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 10, 2020 for studies reporting on the DTA of MRI by PI-RADS category. Accuracy metrics were calculated using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis with PI-RADS three lesions treated as a positive test, negative test, and excluded from the analysis. Differences in DTA were assessed utilizing meta-regression. PC prevalence within each PI-RADS category was estimated with a proportional meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 26 studies reporting on 12,913 patients (4,853 with PC) were included. Sensitivities for PC in the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92-98), 82% (CI 75-87), and 95% (CI 91-97), respectively. Specificities for the positive, negative, and excluded test groups were 33% (CI 23-44), 71% (CI 62-79), and 52% (CI 37-66), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated higher sensitivity (p < 0.001) and lower specificity (p < 0.001) in the positive test group compared to the negative group. Clinically significant PC prevalences were 5.9% (CI 0-17.1), 11.4% (CI 6.5-17.3), 24.9% (CI 18.4-32.0), 55.7% (CI 47.8-63.5), and 81.4% (CI 75.9-86.4) for PI-RADS categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PI-RADS category 3 lesions can significantly impact the DTA of MRI for PC detection. A low prevalence of clinically significant PC is noted in PI-RADS category 1 and 2 cases.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Inclusion or exclusion of PI-RADS category 3 lesions impacts the DTA of MRI for PC detection.

The predictive value of the prostate health index vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

To compare the ability of Prostate Health Index (PHI) to diagnose csPCa, with that of total PSA, PSA density (PSAD) and the multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) of the prostate.

METHODS

We analysed a group of 395 men planned for a prostate biopsy who underwent a mpMRI of the prostate evaluated using the PIRADS v1 criteria. All patients had their PHI measured before prostate biopsy. In patients with an mpMRI suspicious lesions, an mpMRI/ultrasound software fusion-guided biopsy was performed first, with 12 core systematic biopsy performed in all patients. A ROC analysis was performed for PCa detection for total PSA, PSAD, PIRADS score and PHI; with an AUC curve calculated for all criteria and a combination of PIRADS score and PHI. Subsequent sub-analyses included patients undergoing first and repeat biopsy.

RESULTS

The AUC for predicting the presence of csPCa in all patients was 59.5 for total PSA, 69.7 for PHI, 64.9 for PSAD and 62.5 for PIRADS. In biopsy naive patients it was 61.6 for total PSA, 68.9 for PHI, 64.6 for PSAD and 63.1 for PIRADS. In patients with previous negative biopsy the AUC for total PSA, PHI, PSAD and PIRADS was 55.4, 71.2, 64.4 and 69.3, respectively. Adding of PHI to PIRADS increased significantly (p = 0.007) the accuracy for prediction of csPCa.

CONCLUSION

Prostate Health Index could serve as a tool in predicting csPCa. When compared to the mpMRI, it shows comparable results. The PHI cannot, however, help us guide prostate biopsies in any way, and its main use may, therefore, be in pre-MRI or pre-biopsy triage.

Prospective Evaluation of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Detection of High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparison With mpMRI

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of PET with (2S)-2-[[(1S)-1-carboxy-5-[(6-(¹⁸F)fluoranylpyridine-3-carbonyl)amino]pentyl]carbamoylamino]pentanedioic acid (¹⁸F-DCFPyL), a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radiotracer, in the detection of high-risk localized prostate cancer as compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). SUBJECTS AND METHODS. This HIPAA-compliant prospective study included 26 consecutive patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer (median age, 69.5 years [range, 53-81 years]; median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level, 18.88 ng/mL [range, 1.03-20.00 ng/mL]) imaged with ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT and mpMRI. Images from PET/CT and mpMRI were evaluated separately, and suspicious areas underwent targeted biopsy. Lesion-based sensitivity and tumor detection rate were compared for PSMA PET and mpMRI. Standardized uptake value (SUV) and PSMA PET parameters were correlated with histopathology score, and uptake in tumor was compared with that in nonmalignant tissue. On a patient level, SUV and PSMA tumor volume were correlated with PSA density. RESULTS. Forty-four tumors (one in Gleason grade [GG] group 1, 12 in GG group 2, seven in GG group 3, nine in GG group 4, and 15 in GG group 5) were identified at histopathology. Sensitivity and tumor detection rate of ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT and mpMRI were similar (PET/CT, 90.9% and 80%; mpMRI, 86.4% and 88.4%; p = 0.58/0.17). Total lesion PSMA and PSMA tumor volume showed a relationship with GG (τ = 0.27 and p = 0.08, τ = 0.30 and p = 0.06, respectively). Maximum SUV in tumor was significantly higher than that in nonmalignant tissue (p < 0.05). Tumor burden density moderately correlated with PSA density (r = 0.47, p = 0.01). Five true-positive tumors identified on ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT were not identified on mpMRI. CONCLUSION. In patients with high-risk prostate cancer, ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT is highly sensitive in detecting intraprostatic tumors and can detect tumors missed on mpMRI. Measured uptake is significantly higher in tumor tissue, and PSMA-derived tumor burden is associated with severity of disease.

Contrast Medium or No Contrast Medium for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. That Is the Question

The benefits and drawbacks of the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI sequence for prostate cancer diagnosis are increasingly being recognized, with many centers adopting the biparametric (bp) MRI approach as the default initial approach. The abandonment of the routine use of contrast medium requires an assessment of the loss of diagnostic power against the gains in operational logistics, costs, time, capacity, and side effects. It is the balance of these factors weighted against the clinical priorities of patients that determines which patient groups can safely avoid dynamic contrast enhancement. Although systematic reviews and individual studies are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach, the pathway impacts for men with suspected cancer using the bpMRI approach are still not well documented for clinical practice. Robust prospectively acquired data for bpMRI regarding biopsy avoidance, detection of clinically significant and insignificant cancers, and for increasing the precision of tumor grade and volume are needed. There is a requirement for prospective, randomized, or blinded head-to-head, multicenter studies, addressing the noninferiority of biopsy yields prompted by bpMRI and multiparametric MRI approaches. These studies should more precisely define patient groups where the benefits and harms of contrast enhancement are aligned to their clinical priorities. Only then can we be confident in recommending bpMRI as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. Level of Evidence 1 Technical Efficacy Stage 5.

MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions.

METHODS

Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).

Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: a pictorial review of histology-validated cases

The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2019 "Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management" guidelines have recommended that all patients suspected of prostate cancer undergo multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to biopsy. The Likert scoring system is advocated for mpMRI reporting based on multicentre studies that have demonstrated its effectiveness within the National Health Service (NHS). In recent years, there has been considerable drive towards standardised prostate reporting, which led to the development of "Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System" (PI-RADS). The PI-RADS system has been adopted by the majority of European countries and within the US. This paper reviews these systems indicating the similarities and specific differences that exist between PI-RADS and Likert assessment through a series of histologically proven clinical cases.

PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway

High-quality evidence shows that MRI in biopsy-naive men can reduce the number of men who need prostate biopsy and can reduce the number of diagnoses of clinically insignificant cancers that are unlikely to cause harm. In men with prior negative biopsy results who remain under persistent suspicion, MRI improves the detection and localization of life-threatening prostate cancer with greater clinical utility than the current standard of care, systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy. Systematic analyses show that MRI-directed biopsy increases the effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnosis pathway. The incorporation of MRI-directed pathways into clinical care guidelines in prostate cancer detection has begun. The widespread adoption of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting has promoted these changes in practice. The PI-RADS MRI-directed biopsy pathway enables the delivery of key diagnostic benefits to men suspected of having cancer based on clinical suspicion. Herein, the PI-RADS Steering Committee discusses how the MRI pathway should be incorporated into routine clinical practice and the challenges in delivering the positive health impacts needed by men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer.

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions

CONTEXT

The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 analysis system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) is based on PI-RADS v1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus opinion.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADS v2, discuss pathway implications of its use and outline opportunities for improvements and future developments.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

For this consensus expert opinion from the PI-RADS steering committee, clinical studies, systematic reviews, and professional guidelines for mpMRI PCa detection were evaluated. We focused on the performance characteristics of PI-RADS v2, comparing data to systems based on clinicoradiologic Likert scales and non-PI-RADS v2 imaging only. Evidence selections were based on high-quality, prospective, histologically verified data, with minimal patient selection and verifications biases.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice retains higher accuracy over systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies for PCa diagnosis. PI-RADS v2 fails to detect all cancers but does detect the majority of tumors capable of causing patient harm, which should not be missed. Test performance depends on the definition and prevalence of clinically significant disease. Good performance can be attained in practice when the quality of the diagnostic process can be assured, together with joint working of robustly trained radiologists and urologists, conducting biopsy procedures within multidisciplinary teams.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that the test performance of PI-RADS v2 in research and clinical practice is improved, retaining higher accuracy over systematic TRUS biopsies for PCa diagnosis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-directed biopsies using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System improves the detection of prostate cancers likely to cause harm, and at the same time decreases the detection of disease that does not lead to harms if left untreated. The keys to success are high-quality imaging, reporting, and biopsies by radiologists and urologists working together in multidisciplinary teams.

Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy

PURPOSE

Active surveillance has gained acceptance as an alternative to definitive therapy in many men with prostate cancer. Confirmatory biopsies to assess the appropriateness of active surveillance are routinely performed and negative biopsies are regarded as a favorable prognostic indicator. We sought to determine the prognostic implications of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy consisting of extended sextant, systematic biopsy plus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients referred with Gleason Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer based on systematic biopsy performed elsewhere underwent confirmatory fusion biopsy. Patients who continued on active surveillance after a positive or a negative fusion biopsy were followed. The baseline characteristics of the biopsy negative and positive cases were compared. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic significance of a negative fusion biopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate Grade Group progression with time.

RESULTS

Of the 542 patients referred with Grade Group 1 (466) or Grade Group 2 (76) cancer 111 (20.5%) had a negative fusion biopsy. A total of 60 vs 122 patients with a negative vs a positive fusion biopsy were followed on active surveillance with a median time to Grade Group progression of 74.3 and 44.6 months, respectively (p <0.01). Negative fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced risk of Grade Group progression (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.77, p <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A negative confirmatory fusion biopsy confers a favorable prognosis for Grade Group progression. These results can be used when counseling patients about the risk of progression and for planning future followup and biopsies in patients on active surveillance.

Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We examined the additional value of preoperative prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound/multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided targeted biopsy when performed in combination with clinical nomograms to predict adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to fusion biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The Partin and the MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) preradical prostatectomy nomograms were applied to estimate the probability of organ confined disease, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement using transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy and transrectal ultrasound/multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided targeted biopsy Gleason scores. With radical prostatectomy pathology as the gold standard we developed multivariable logistic regression models based on these nomograms before and after adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to assess any additional predictive ability.

RESULTS

A total of 532 patients were included in study. When multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings were added to the systematic biopsy based MSKCC nomogram, the AUC increased by 0.10 for organ confined disease (p <0.001), 0.10 for extraprostatic extension (p = 0.003), 0.09 for seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.011) and 0.06 for lymph node involvement (p = 0.120). Using Gleason scores derived from targeted biopsy compared to systematic biopsy provided an additional predictive value of organ confined disease (Δ AUC 0.07, p = 0.003) and extraprostatic extension (Δ AUC 0.07, p = 0.048) at radical prostatectomy with the MSKCC nomogram. Similar results were obtained using the Partin nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging alone or in addition to standard clinical nomograms provides significant additional predictive ability of adverse pathology at the time of radical prostatectomy. This information can be greatly beneficial to urologists for preoperative planning and for counseling patients regarding the risks of future therapy.