Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study

Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.

MRI and active surveillance: thoughts from across the pond

In the United States (US), urological guidelines recommend active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and endorse it as an option for those with favorable intermediate-risk PCa with a > 10-year life expectancy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is being increasingly used in the screening, monitoring, and staging of PCa and involves the combination of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging. The American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines provide recommendations about the use of mpMRI in the confirmatory setting for AS patients but do not discuss the timing of follow-up mpMRI in AS. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) discourages using it more frequently than every 12 months. Finally, guidelines state that mpMRI can be used to augment risk stratification but should not replace periodic surveillance biopsy. In this review, we discuss the current literature regarding the use of mpMRI for patients with AS, with a particular focus on the approach in the US. Although AS shows a benefit to the addition of mpMRI to diagnostic, confirmatory, and follow-up biopsy, there is no strong evidence to suggest that mpMRI can safely replace biopsy for most patients and thus it must be incorporated into a multimodal approach. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: According to the US guidelines, regular follow-ups are important for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance, and prostate MRI is a valuable tool that should be utilized, in combination with PSA kinetics and biopsies, for monitoring prostate cancer. KEY POINTS: According to the US guidelines, the addition of MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Timing interval imaging of patients on active surveillance remains unclear and has not been specifically addressed. MRI should trigger further work-ups, but not replace periodic follow-up biopsies, in men on active surveillance.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring.

Objective

To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%.

Design setting and participants

PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables.

Results and limitations

The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score (p = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score (p = 0.009), previous negative biopsy (p = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up.

Conclusions

MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC.

Patient summary

We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

Clinical Application of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Score for Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Background

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) score has been developed to standardise prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting in men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa).

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of PRECISE scoring and assess its diagnostic accuracy.

Design setting and participants

All PCa patients on AS with a baseline MRI and at least one follow-up MRI scan between January 2008 and September 2022 at a single tertiary referral centre were included in a database. The follow-up protocol of the Prostate Cancer International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study was used. All scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated uroradiologist and appointed a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (version 2.1) and PRECISE score.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Clinically significant progression was defined by histopathological upgrading (on biopsy or radical prostatectomy) to grade group ≥3 and/or evolution to T3 stage. A survival analysis was performed to assess differential progression-free survival (PFS) according to the PRECISE score.

Results and limitations

A total of 188 patients were included for an analysis with a total of 358 repeat MRI scans and 144 repeat biopsies. The median follow-up was 46 mo (interquartile range 21-74). Radiological progression (PRECISE 4-5) had sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of, respectively, 78%, 70%, 90%, and 49% for clinically significant progression. Four-year PFS was 91% for PRECISE 1-3 versus 66% for PRECISE 4-5 (p < 0.001). In total, 137 patients underwent a confirmation MRI scan within 18 mo after diagnosis. Four-year PFS in this group was 81% for PRECISE 1-3 versus 43% for PRECISE 4-5 (p < 0.001). Limitations include retrospective design and no strict adherence to AS protocol.

Conclusions

Implementation of PRECISE scoring for PCa patients on AS is feasible and offers a prognostic value. Patients with PRECISE score 4-5 on confirmation MRI within 18 mo after diagnosis have a three-fold higher risk of clinically significant progression after 4 yr.

Patient summary

Patients with low-risk prostate cancer can be followed up carefully. In this study, we evaluate the standardised reporting of repeat magnetic resonance imaging scans (using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] recommendations). PRECISE scoring is feasible and helps identify patients in need of further treatment.

MRI for detection, staging, and follow-up of prostate cancer: Synthesis of the PI-RADS v2.1, MET-RADS, PRECISE, and PI-RR guidelines

Prostate cancer is very common among men. Radiology, mainly through MRI, plays a key role in the different stages of prostate cancer: diagnosis, staging and treatment assessment. The correct management of MRI requires knowledge and proper use of the different guidelines developed for the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of MRI in diagnosis (PI-RADS guide), whole body staging (MET-RADS guide), active surveillance (PRECISE guide) and local recurrence (PI-RR guide) in prostate cancer. The objective of this article is to show an update and synthesis of the most relevant aspects of these MRI guidelines for an optimal use and thus providing a more effective management of prostate cancer.

mpMRI Interpretation in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-An overview of the PRECISE score

Active surveillance (AS) is now included in all major guidelines for patients with low-risk PCa and selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa. Several studies have highlighted the potential benefit of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS and it has been adopted in some guidelines. However, uncertainty remains about whether serial mpMRI can help to safely reduce the number of required repeat biopsies under AS. In 2017, the European School of Oncology initiated the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) panel which proposed the PRECISE scoring system to assess the likelihood of radiological tumor progression on serial mpMRI. The PRECISE scoring system remains the only major system evaluated in multiple publications. In this review article, we discuss the current body of literature investigating the application of PRECISE as it is not as yet an established standard in mpMRI reporting. We delineate the strengths of PRECISE and its potential added value. Also, we underline potential weaknesses of the PRECISE scoring system, which might be tackled in future versions to further increase its value in AS.

Are Urologists Ready for Interpretation of Multiparametric MRI Findings? A Prospective Multicentric Evaluation

Aim: To assess urologists’ proficiency in the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Materials and Methods: Twelve mpMRIs were shown to 73 urologists from seven Italian institutions. Responders were asked to identify the site of the suspicious nodule (SN) but not to assign a PIRADS score. We set an a priori cut-off of 75% correct identification of SN as a threshold for proficiency in mpMRI reading. Data were analyzed according to urologists’ hierarchy (UH; resident vs. consultant) and previous experience in fusion prostate biopsies (E-fPB, defined as <125 vs. ≥125). Additionally, we tested for differences between non-proficient vs. proficient mpMRI readers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVLRA) tested potential predictors of proficiency in mpMRI reading. Results: The median (IQR) number of correct identifications was 8 (6−8). Anterior nodules (number 3, 4 and 6) represented the most likely prone to misinterpretation. Overall, 34 (47%) participants achieved the 75% cut-off. When comparing consultants vs. residents, we found no differences in terms of E-fPB (p = 0.9) or in correct identification rates (p = 0.6). We recorded higher identification rates in urologists with E-fBP vs. their no E-fBP counterparts (75% vs. 67%, p = 0.004). At MVLRA, only E- fPB reached the status of independent predictor of proficiency in mpMRI reading (OR: 3.4, 95% CI 1.2−9.9, p = 0.02) after adjusting for UH and type of institution. Conclusions: Despite urologists becoming more familiar with interpretation of mpMRI, their results are still far from proficient. E-fPB enhances the proficiency in mpMRI interpretation.

Confirmatory transperineal saturation prostate biopsy combined with mpMRI decrease the reclassification rate in men enrolled in Active Surveillance: Our experience in 100 men submitted to eight-years scheduled biopsy

Introduction: The reclassification rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in Active Surveillance (AS) as been prospective-ly evaluated. Patients and methods: One hundred patients with very low risk PCa underwent after 8 years a scheduled transperineal prostate biopsy (SPBx = 20 cores) combined with additionalmpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (4 cores) of lesions PI-RADS scores ≥ 3. All the patients, after initial diagnosis, previously had mpMRI evaluation combined with transperineal saturation prostate biopsy (confirmatory and 3-year scheduled biopsy). Risk reclassification at repeat biopsy triggering the recommen-dation for active treatment was defined as over 3 or more than 10% of positive cores, Gleason score > 6/ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2, greatest percentage of cancer (GPC) > 50%.Results: Multiparametric MRI was suspicious (PI-RADS ≥ 3) in 30 of 100 cases (30.0%); 70 (70.0%) vs. 20 (20.0%) vs. 10(10.0%) patients had a PI-RADS score ≤ 2 vs. 3 vs. 4, respec-tively. Two (2.0%) patients with PI-RADS score 3 and 4 were upgraded (ISUP Grade Group 2); SPBx and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy diagnosed 100% and 0% of csPCa, respectively. Conclusions: Transperineal SPBx combined with mpMRI at ini-tial confirmatory biopsy allow to select an high number of men at very low risk of reclassification during the AS follow up (2.0%of the cases at 8 years from diagnosis); these data could be use-ful to reduce the number of scheduled repeated prostate biopsy during the AS follow up.

Inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score: A bicentric study

PURPOSE

To investigate the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

METHODS

We included 66 men who underwent 1.5 T mpMRI in June 2020-July 2020 in center 1, with no exclusion criteria. mpMRI included multiplanar T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE). Two readers from center 2 (experience <1000 to >1500 examinations), blinded to clinical history but not to acquisition parameters, independently assessed PI-QUAL qualitative/anatomical items of each mpMRI sequence, final PI-QUAL score (1-5), and the Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) category of the index lesion. Cohen's kappa statistics (k) or prevalence-adjusted-bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) were used to calculate the inter-reader agreement in assessing the PI-QUAL (1-to-5 scale and 1-2 versus 3 versus 4-5), the diagnostic quality of each mpMRI sequence, qualitative/anatomical items, and PI-RADSv2.1 category.

RESULTS

The inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL category was moderate upon 1-5 scale (k = 0.55; 95%CI 0.39-0.71) or 1-3 scale (k = 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.72), with 90.9% examinations categorized PI-QUAL ≥ 3 by readers. The agreement in assessing a sequence as diagnostic was higher for T2WI (k = 0.76) than DCE (PABAK = 0.61) and DWI (k = 0.46), ranging moderate-to-substantial for most of the items. Readers provided comparable PI-RADSv2.1 categorization (k = 0.88 [excellent agreement]; 95%CI 0.81-0.96), with most PI-RADSv2.1 ≥ 3 assignments found in PI-QUAL ≥ 3 examinations (43/46 by reader 1, and 47/47 by reader 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The reproducibility of PI-QUAL was moderate. Higher PI-QUAL scores were associated with excellent inter-reader agreement for PI-RADSv2.1 categorization.

Serial changes in tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance with and without histopathological progression

OBJECTIVE

To analyse serial changes in MRI-derived tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS) with and without histopathological disease progression.

METHODS

This study included AS patients with biopsy-proven PCa with a minimum of two consecutive MR examinations and at least one repeat targeted biopsy. Tumour volumes, largest axial two-dimensional (2D) surface areas, and maximum diameters were measured on T2 weighted images (T2WI). ADC values were derived from the whole lesions, 2D areas, and small-volume regions of interest (ROIs) where tumours were most conspicuous. Areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated for combinations of T2WI and ADC parameters with optimal specificity and sensitivity.

RESULTS

60 patients (30 progressors and 30 non-progressors) were included. In progressors, T2WI-derived tumour volume, 2D surface area, and maximum tumour diameter had a median increase of +99.5%,+55.3%, and +21.7% compared to +29.2%,+8.1%, and +6.9% in non-progressors (p < 0.005 for all). Follow-up whole-volume and small-volume ROIs ADC values were significantly reduced in progressors (-11.7% and -9.5%) compared to non-progressors (-6.1% and -1.6%) (p < 0.05 for both). The combined AUC of a relative increase in maximum tumour diameter by 20% and reduction in small-volume ADC by 10% was 0.67.

CONCLUSION

AS patients show significant differences in tumour measurements and ADC values between those with and without histopathological disease progression.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This paper proposes specific clinical cut-offs for T2WI-derived maximum tumour diameter (+20%) and small-volume ADC (-10%) to predict histopathological PCa progression on AS and supplement subjective serial MRI assessment.

Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a scoping review on the benefits and harm of mpMRI in different biopsy scenarios

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty on how multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) can be best used to manage low-risk prostate cancer patients on Active Surveillance (AS). We performed a scoping review to evaluate the benefits and harm associated with four different biopsy scenarios in which mpMRI can be implemented in AS.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases (1 January 2013-18 September 2020) were searched. Included studies were on men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in AS, who had mpMRI ± MRI-TB and standard prostate biopsy (systematic transrectal ultrasound or transperineal saturation biopsy), at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. Primary outcomes were the number of Gleason score upgrades and biopsies avoided.

RESULTS

Eight confirmatory biopsy studies and three follow-up biopsy studies were included. Compared to the benchmark of using standard biopsy (SB) for all men, the addition of MRI-TB increased the detection of Gleason score upgrades at both confirmatory (6/8 studies) and follow-up biopsy (3/3 studies), with increments of 1.7-11.8 upgrades per 100 men. 6/7 studies suggested that the use of a positive mpMRI to triage men for MRI-TB or SB alone would detect fewer Gleason score upgrades than benchmark at confirmatory biopsy, but the combination of MRI-TB and SB would detect more upgrades than the benchmark. For follow-up biopsy, the evidence on mpMRI triage biopsy scenarios was inconclusive due to the small number of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of MRI-TB to benchmark (SB for all men) maximises the detection of Gleason score upgrades at confirmatory and follow-up biopsy. When the use of mpMRI to triage men for a biopsy is desired, the combination of MRI-TB and SB should be considered for men with positive mpMRI at confirmatory biopsy. The evidence on mpMRI triage scenarios was inconclusive in the follow-up biopsy setting.

Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial

Objectives

The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.

Methods

We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement.

Results

The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1–2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%).

Conclusion

We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted.

Key Points

• Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 – 1) and percent agreement = 84%.

• Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 – 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%.

• T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08169-1.

Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.

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.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Which Prostate Biopsy in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance? Experience in 110 Men Submitted to Scheduled Three-Years Transperineal Saturation Biopsy Combined With Fusion Targeted Cores

INTRODUCTION

The reclassification rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) has been evaluated in men enrolled in active surveillance (AS) protocol who previously underwent confirmatory biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2013 to September 2017, 110 patients (median age 63 years) with very low risk PCa underwent 3-years scheduled prostate biopsy performing repeated transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx); in addition, the mpMRI lesions characterized by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores ≥ 3 were submitted to additional mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (4 cores). The reclassification rate for csPCa (over 3 or more than 10% of positive cores, ISUP Grade Group/GG ≥ 2, greatest percentage of cancer > 50%) has been evaluated.

RESULTS

Six (5.4%) patients with PI-RADS score 3 (4 men) vs. 4 (2 men) were reclassified based on upgraded (GG2); SPBx and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy diagnosed 100% and 0% of csPCa, respectively. Of the remaining 104 (94.5%) patients, 75 (72.2%) were found to have very low-risk PCa and in 29 (27.8%) cancer was absent (normal parenchyma).

CONCLUSION

SPBx combined with mpMRI at confirmatory and repeated evaluation allow to reduce the reclassification rate during AS follow up (5.4% of the cases at 3 years from diagnosis).

Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

Objectives

The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol.

Methods

A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves.

Results

Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Conclusions

Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

Key Points

• Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

• Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS.

• Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07256-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prostate cancer measurements on serial MRI during active surveillance: it's time to be PRECISE

OBJECTIVE

The PRECISE criteria for reporting multiparametric MRI in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time using a 1-5 scale, where 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. According to the PRECISE recommendations, the index lesion size can be reported using different definitions of volume (planimetry or ellipsoid formula) or by measuring one or two diameters. We compared different measurements using planimetry as the reference standard and stratified changes according to the PRECISE scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 196 patients on AS with PCa confirmed by targeted biopsy who had two MR scans (baseline and follow-up). Lesions were measured on T₂ weighted imaging (T₂WI) according to all definitions. A PRECISE score was assessed for each patient.

RESULTS

The ellipsoid formula exhibited the highest correlation with planimetry at baseline (ρ = 0.97) and follow-up (ρ = 0.98) imaging, compared to the biaxial measurement and single maximum diameter. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the yearly percentage volume change between radiological regression/stability (PRECISE 2-3) and progression (PRECISE 4-5) for planimetry (39.64%) and for the ellipsoid formula (46.78%).

CONCLUSION

The ellipsoid formula could be used to monitor tumour growth during AS. Evidence of a significant yearly percentage volume change between radiological regression/stability (PRECISE 2-3) and progression (PRECISE 4-5) has been also observed.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The ellipsoid formula is a reasonable surrogate for planimetry in capturing tumour volume changes on T₂WI in patients on imaging-led AS. This is also associated with radiological changes using the PRECISE recommendations.