The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer

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.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the selection and follow-up of patients undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. An European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) review

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, active surveillance (AS) has gained popularity as a safe and reasonable option for patients with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the latest information regarding the use of mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance (AS) for the management of prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed-based, English literature search was conducted through February 2020. We selected the most relevant original articles, meta-analyses and systematic reviews that could provide important information.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The great importance of mpMRI of the prostate in the setting of PCa diagnosis is its ability to visualize primarily high-grade cancerous lesions potentially missed on systematic biopsies. In several studies, mpMRI has shown an improved performance over clinically based models for identifying candidates which will benefit the most from AS. Although data on prostate mpMRI during follow-up of men under AS is sparse, it holds the probability to improve significantly AS programs by a more precise selection of optimal candidates, a more accurate identification of disease progression and a reduction in number of biopsies. The goal of reassessment of patients undergoing AS is to find the most effective moment to change attitude to active treatment.

CONCLUSION

The value of mpMRI has been recognized due to its high negative predictive value (NPV) for lesion upgrading in low-risk PCa patients. The improvement in imaging detection, and precise diagnosis with mpMRI could reduce misclassifications at initial diagnosis and during follow-up, reducing the number of biopsies.

Assessment of PSIM (Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers) Score in Predicting Pathologic Features at Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Who Met the Inclusion Criteria for Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

circulating levels of lymphocytes, platelets and neutrophils have been identified as factors related to unfavorable clinical outcome for many solid tumors. The aim of this cohort study is to evaluate and validate the use of the Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers (PSIM) score in predicting and improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance.

METHODS

we reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. We performed a head-to-head comparison between the histological findings of specimens after radical prostatectomy (RP) and prostate biopsies. The PSIM score was calculated on the basis of positivity according to cutoffs (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) 2.0, platelets-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) 118 and monocyte-to-lymphocyte-ratio (MLR) 5.0), with 1 point assigned for each value exceeding the specified threshold and then summed, yielding a final score ranging from 0 to 3.

RESULTS

median NLR was 2.07, median PLR was 114.83, median MLR was 3.69.

CONCLUSION

we found a significantly increase in the rate of pathological International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ≥ 2 with the increase of PSIM. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, prostate volume and PSIM, the latter was found the sole independent prognostic variable influencing probability of adverse pathology.

Role of Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging before Confirmatory Biopsy in Assessing the Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression during Active Surveillance

Objective

To evaluate the impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before confirmatory prostate biopsy in patients under active surveillance (AS).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 170 patients with Gleason grade 6 prostate cancer initially enrolled in an AS program between 2011 and 2019. Prostate mpMRI was performed using a 1.5 tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging system with a 16-channel phased-array body coil. The protocol included T1-weighted, T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging sequences. Uroradiology reports generated by a specialist were based on prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed based on regression models.

Results

The reclassification rate at confirmatory biopsy was higher in patients with suspicious lesions on mpMRI (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) (n = 47) than in patients with non-suspicious mpMRIs (n = 61) and who did not undergo mpMRIs (n = 62) (66%, 26.2%, and 24.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) was associated (adjusted odds ratio: 4.72) with the risk of reclassification at confirmatory biopsy after adjusting for the main variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, number of positive cores, number of previous biopsies, and clinical stage). Presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.62) was also associated with the risk of progression to active treatment during the follow-up.

Conclusion

Inclusion of mpMRI before the confirmatory biopsy is useful to stratify the risk of reclassification during the biopsy as well as to evaluate the risk of progression to active treatment during follow-up.

Prostate cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active surveillance: are confirmatory biopsies still necessary?

Objectives

To investigate whether serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide the utility of repeat targeted (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) when monitoring men with low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) at 1‐year of active surveillance (AS).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively included 111 consecutive men with low‐risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade 1) PCa, who received protocolled repeat MRI with or without TBx and repeat SBx at 1‐year of AS. TBx was performed in Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score ≥3 lesions (MRI‐positive men). Upgrading defined as ISUP Grade ≥2 PCa (I), Grade ≥2 with cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma PCa (II), and Grade ≥3 PCa (III) was investigated. Upgrading detected by TBx only (not by SBx) and SBx only (not by TBx) was investigated in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men, and related to radiological progression on MRI (Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] score).

Results

Overall upgrading (I) was 32% (35/111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 48% (30/63) and 10% (5/48) (P < 0.001), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in 23% (seven of 30) by TBx only and in 33% (10/30) by SBx only. Radiological progression (PRECISE score 4–5) in MRI‐positive men was seen in 27% (17/63). Upgrading (I) occurred in 41% (seven of 17) of these MRI‐positive men, while this was 50% (23/46) in MRI‐positive men without radiological progression (PRECISE score 1–3) (P = 0.534). Overall upgrading (II) was 15% (17/111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 22% (14/63) and 6% (three of 48) (P = 0.021), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in three of 14 by TBx only and in seven of 14 by SBx only. Overall upgrading (III) occurred in 5% (five of 111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 6% (four of 63) and 2% (one of 48) (P = 0.283), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in one of four by TBx only and in two of four by SBx only.

Conclusion

Upgrading is significantly lower in MRI‐negative compared to MRI‐positive men with low‐risk PCa at 1‐year of AS. In serial MRI‐negative men, the added value of repeat SBx at 1‐year surveillance is limited and should be balanced individually against the harms. In serial MRI‐positive men, the added value of repeat SBx is substantial. Based on this cohort, SBx is recommended to be performed in combination with TBx in all MRI‐positive men at 1‐year of AS, also when there is no radiological progression.

Development and External Validation of Multiparametric MRI-Derived Nomogram to Predict Risk of Pathologic Upgrade in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to create, develop, and externally validate a nomogram that predicts pathologic upgrade in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer using commonly available clinical and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A consecutive sample of 300 patients undergoing AS for prostate cancer at the Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital between 2010 and 2016 was used to develop the nomogram. The validation cohort consisted of 150 patients undergoing active surveillance at Kyungpook National University Hospital between 2013 and 2017. The study outcome was the occurrence of pathologic upgrade in AS patients. The relationship between the clinical and mpMRI factors considered and pathologic upgrade was tested using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The predictive accuracy of the nomogram was determined using the ROC AUC. RESULTS. The overall rate of pathologic upgrade was 25.0% in the developmental cohort and 22.0% in the validation cohort. Significant variables in the models were age, prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy grade group 2, baseline Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores of 4 and 5, positive cores on initial biopsy greater than 1, and biopsy cores with 50% or more tumor involvement. The progression seen on mpMRI of PI-RADS score was significantly associated with pathologic upgrade. The nomogram used to predict the risk of pathologic upgrade had a predictive accuracy of 0.78 in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSION. This study developed and externally validated a nomogram that predicts the risk of pathologic upgrade on the basis of commonly used factors. This nomogram may be used to assist management decision making for patients on AS for prostate cancer.

MRI to guide biopsies or avoid biopsies?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss contemporary data on the value of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for guiding the decision to biopsy men at risk for prostate cancer, as well as its utility in active surveillance programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a systematic 12-core biopsy is the current standard of care for men with increased suspicion for prostate cancer, MRI with or without targeted biopsy has been shown to reliably improve the detection of clinically significant disease following a prior negative biopsy. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of MRI for diagnostic purposes in biopsy-naive patients, as well for enrolling and monitoring men on active surveillance programs.

SUMMARY

mpMRI is an evolving technology with great promise for altering our approach to prostate cancer diagnosis and surveillance. In conjunction with targeted biopsies, MRI offers greater specificity for the detection of clinically significant cancer and therefore may help to reduce overdetection of indolent disease while minimizing the risks and limitations of systematic biopsies.

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsy in risk classification among patients on active surveillance: A diagnostic meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS) procedure.

METHODS

We searched databases to identify relevant studies which compared MRI-TB with systemic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer in patients on AS. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC) and publication bias of AS group, confirmatory biopsy group and follow-up biopsy group.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles involving 1693 patients were included. In AS group, the sensitivity was 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.68), specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.90), NLR was 0.43 (0.31-0.60), PLR was 4.90 (3.50-6.86), DOR was 12.75 (7.22-22.51), and AUC was 0.8645. In confirmatory biopsy group, the sensitivity was 0.67 (0.59-0.74), specificity was 0.89 (0.86-0.91), NLR was 0.42 (0.27-0.65), PLR was 4.94 (3.88-6.30), DOR was 14.54 (9.60-22.02), and AUC was 0.8812. In follow-up biopsy group, the sensitivity was 0.35 (0.22-0.51), specificity was 0.88 (0.82-0.92), NLR was 0.76 (0.52-1.11), PLR was 3.06 (1.71-5.50), DOR was 4.41 (2.15-9.03), and AUC was 0.8367.

CONCLUSION

MRI-TB has a moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing and reclassifying patients on AS with high specificity and AUC value under the SROC curve.

Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for patients under active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review with diagnostic meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the setting of patients under active surveillance (AS) is promising. In this systematic-review we aimed to analyse the role of mpMRI in patients under AS.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature research for English-language original and review articles, recently published, was carried out using Medline, Scopus and Web of sciences databases until 30 October 2017. The following MeSH terms were used: 'active surveillance', 'prostate cancer', 'multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging'. A diagnostic meta-analysis was performed for 3.0 T mpMRI in predicting disease re-classification.

RESULTS

In total, 226 studies were selected after research and after removal of duplicates. After analysis on inclusion criteria, 43 studies were identified as eligible for this systematic review with a total of 6,605 patients. The timing of MRI during follow-up of AS differed from all studies like criteria for inclusion in the AS protocol. Overall, there was a low risk of bias across all studies. The diagnostic meta-analysis for 1.5 tesla showed a sensitivity of 0.60, negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.75 and a hierarchical summary receiving operating curve (HSROC) of 0.74 while for 3.0 tesla mpMRI a sensitivity of 0.81, a NPV of 0.78 and a HSROC of 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the available evidence suggests that both 1.5 or 3.0 Tesla mpMRI are a valid tool to monitor progression during AS follow-up, showing good accuracy capabilities in detecting PCa re-classification. However, the modality to better define what means 'disease progression' on mpMRI must be further evaluated.

MRI findings guiding selection of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review of emerging evidence

Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) is generally considered to be a safe strategy for men with low-risk, localized disease. However, as many as 1 in 4 patients may be incorrectly classified as AS-eligible using traditional inclusion criteria. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may offer improved risk stratification in both the initial diagnostic and disease monitoring setting. We performed a review of recently published studies to evaluate the utility of this imaging modality for this clinical setting. An English literature search was conducted on PubMed for original investigations on localized PCa, AS, and magnetic resonance imaging. Our Boolean criteria included the following terms: PCa, AS, imaging, MRI, mpMRI, prospective, retrospective, and comparative. Our search excluded publication types such as comments, editorials, guidelines, reviews, or interviews. Our literature review identified 71 original investigations. Among these, 52 met our inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests mpMRI improves characterization of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) foci, and the enhanced detection and risk-stratification afforded by this modality may keep men from being inappropriately placed on AS. Use of serial mpMRI may also permit longer intervals between confirmatory biopsies. Multiple studies demonstrate the benefit of MRI-targeted biopsies. The use of mpMRI of the prostate offers improved confidence in risk-stratification for men with clinically low-risk PCa considering AS. While on AS, serial mpMRI and MRI-targeted biopsy aid in the detection of aggressive disease transformation or foci of clinically-significant cancer undetected on prior biopsy sessions.

MRI in active surveillance: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

Recent technological advancements and the introduction of modern anatomical and functional sequences have led to a growing role for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection, risk assessment and monitoring of early prostate cancer. This includes men who have been diagnosed with lower-risk prostate cancer and are looking at the option of active surveillance (AS). The purpose of this paper is to review the recent evidence supporting the use of mpMRI at different time points in AS, as well as to discuss some of its potential pitfalls.

METHODS

A combination of electronic and manual searching methods were used to identify recent, important papers investigating the role of mpMRI in AS.

RESULTS

The high negative predictive value of mpMRI can be exploited for the selection of AS candidates. In addition, mpMRI can be efficiently used to detect higher risk disease in patients already on surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Although there is an ongoing debate regarding the precise nature of its optimal implementation, mpMRI is a promising risk stratification tool and should be considered for men on AS.

Targets missed: predictors of MRI-targeted biopsy failing to accurately localize prostate cancer found on systematic biopsy

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy has improved the ability to localize and detect prostate cancer (PCa) with efficiency surpassing systematic biopsy. Nevertheless, some patients have PCa missed using the MRI-targeted biopsy sampling alone. We aim to identify clinical and imaging parameters associated with cases where targeted biopsy did not detect PCa compared to systematic biopsy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in addition to concurrent systematic, extended-sextant biopsy between 2014 and 2017. For patients with PCa detected on systematic biopsy not properly localized by MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy, the sextant distance from MRI-targeted lesion to the cancer-positive sextant was calculated and parameters potentially predicting this targeting miss were evaluated.

RESULTS

In all, 35/127 (27.6%) patients with single-session MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy plus standard biopsy finding PCa had lesions incorrectly localized. Of these, 15/35 (42.9%) were identified as possible fusion-software misregistrations. The remainder, 12/35 (34.3%), represented targeted biopsies one sextant away from the cancer focus and 8/35 (22.9%) targeted biopsies two sextants away from the cancer focus. Only 7/35 (20.0%) patients were determined to have clinically significant PCa, which represents 7/127 (5.5%) of the overall population. Lower MRI lesion volumes (p = 0.022), lesion density (p < 0.001), and PI-RADS scores (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with targeted biopsy missing PCa detected on systematic biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Clinically significant PCa is rarely missed utilizing MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy. With the majority of missed tumors representing targeting misregistrations or cases of low-grade cancer in sextants immediately adjacent to MRI suspicious lesions. Lower MRI lesion volumes, lesion density, and PI-RADS are predictors of cases with targeted biopsies missing cancer, for which systematic sampling of the sextants containing MRI targets and adjacent sextants would most optimize PCa detection.

Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the additional value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies to confirmatory systematic biopsies in identifying high-grade prostate cancer in men with low-risk disease on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy, as active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer is recommended for men with Gleason 3 + 3 on standard TRUS-guided biopsy. Confirmatory assessment can include repeat standard TRUS-guided biopsy, and/or MRI with targeted biopsy when indicated.

METHODS

A systematic review of the Embase, Medline, Web-of-science, Google scholar, and Cochrane library was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. Studies reporting men with Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer who had chosen AS based on transrectal systematic biopsy findings and had undergone MRI with systematic ± targeted biopsy at confirmatory assessment were included. The primary outcome was detection of any Gleason pattern ≥4.

RESULTS

Included reports (six) of men on AS (n = 1 159) showed cancer upgrading (Gleason ≥3 + 4) in 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22-34%) using a combined approach of MRI-targeted biopsies and confirmatory systematic biopsies. MRI-targeted biopsies alone would have missed cancer upgrading in 10% (95% CI 8-14%) and standard biopsies alone would have missed cancer upgrading in 7% (95% CI 5-10%). No pathway was more favourable than the other (relative risk [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.06). In all, 35% (95% CI 27-43%) of men with a positive MRI were upgraded, compared to 12% (95% CI 8-18%) of men with a negative MRI being upgraded (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.76-4.38).

CONCLUSIONS

A pre-biopsy MRI should be performed before confirmatory systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in men on AS, together with MRI-targeted biopsies when indicated. A combined approach maximises cancer detection, although other factors within multivariate risk prediction can be used to aid the decision to biopsy in these men.

[Active surveillance in prostate cancer: Assessment of MRI in the selection and follow-up of patients]

AIM

To evaluate the contribution of multiparametric MRI (MRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) in the selection and follow-up of patients under active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort study on 131 patients in AS, with following criteria:≤cT2 stage, PSA≤15ng/mL, Gleason score≤6,≤3 positive biopsies and maximum tumor length≤5mm. Patients' selection and follow-up was performed by the combination of systemic biopsies (SB) and mpMRI±TB. Reclassification was defined by a Gleason score>6 and/or a maximum tumor length>5mm.

RESULTS

Overall, 29 patients (22.1 %) were reclassified. Reclassification free survival rate was 93 % and 70 % at 1 year and 4 years respectively. Reclassification independent risk factors were: PSA density>0.15ng/mL/cm³ (RR=2.75), PSA doubling time<3 years (RR=9.28), suspicious lesion on MRI diagnosis (RR=2.79) and occurrence of MRI progression during follow-up (RR=2). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of MRI to assess progression for reclassification were 61 %, 69 %, 45 % and 81 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients under AS, mpMRI decreases reclassification rates over time through better initial detection of significant cancers. Its high NPV makes it an efficient monitoring tool to distinguish patients with low risk of reclassification.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

[Pathology findings after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: Contribution of multiparametric MRI to treatment decision]

OBJECTIVES

To analyze, in patients with prostate cancer (PC) potentially eligible for active surveillance (AS), whether multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) predicts presence of clinically significant cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen.

METHODS

We identified 77 men with PC eligible for AS (PSA≤15ng/mL, stage≤T2a, Gleason score≤6, up to 3 positive cores, maximal cancer core length≤5mm) who underwent RP between 01/2008 and 08/2015. All patients had prebiopsy mp-MRI followed by systematic±targeted biopsies. For each patient, the likelihood of the presence of cancer on mp-MRI was assigned using Likert scale (1 to 5). The predictive factors for the presence of significant cancer on RP specimen (Gleason score≥7 and/or tumoral maximal diameter>10mm) were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 and median PSA was 6.7ng/mL. Overall, 49 (64%) patients had a positive mp-MRI (score≥3). Clinically significant cancer on RP specimen was found in 45 (58%) patients (69% in MRI-positive patients vs 39% in MRI-negative patients). In multivariate analysis, a positive MRI was a predictive factor for the presence of significant cancer on the surgical specimen (OR=3.0; CI95% [1.01-8.88]; P=0.04), as was age (OR=1.17; CI95% [1.05-1.31]; P=0.004) and PSAD (OR=1.10; CI95% [1.01-1.20]; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Mp-MRI is a useful exam for selecting patients eligible for AS even if the situation remains unclear after prostate biopsies including targeted biopsies. Upon confirmation by further studies, mp-MRI should be considered as an independent criterion before entering an AS program.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Prostate cancer: in-bore magnetic resonance guided biopsies at active surveillance inclusion improve selection of patients for active treatment

Background Active surveillance (AS) of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is an accepted alternative to active treatment. However, the conventional diagnostic trans-rectal ultrasound guided biopsies (TRUS-bx) underestimate PCa aggressiveness in almost half of the cases, when compared with the surgical specimen. Purpose To investigate if additional multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and MRI-guided in-bore biopsies (MRGB) at AS inclusion would improve selection of patients for active treatment. Material and Methods All patients enrolled in AS programs at two Danish centers, from October 2014 to January 2016, were offered an mpMRI 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnostic TRUS-bx. Candidates had low-risk disease (PSA < 10 ng/mL, <cT2b, Gleason score [GS] < 7). Prostate lesions were scored on the five-point PIRADS scale (version 1 and 2). MRGB were performed on PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions. Significant cancer was defined as GS > 6 or GS 6 (3 + 3) lesions with ≥ 6 mm maximal cancer core length (MCCL). Results A total of 78 patients were included and in 21 patients a total of 22 PIRADS-score 4 or 5 lesions were detected. MRGB pathology revealed that 17 (81%) of these and 22% of the entire AS population harbored significant cancers at AS inclusion. In eight (38%) cases, the GS was upgraded. Also, nine patients (43%) had GS 6 (3 + 3) foci with MCCL ≥ 6 mm. Conclusion In an AS cohort based on TRUS and TRUS-bx diagnostic strategies, supplemental mpMRI and in-bore MRGB were able to efficiently reclassify a substantial number of patients as candidates for immediate active treatment.

Value of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance After 1 Yr Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) aims to reduce overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) in an AS protocol might contribute to more accurate identification of AS candidates.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of 3T mp-MRI and MRGB in PC patients on AS at inclusion and after 12-mo follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with cT1c-cT2 PC, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10ng/ml, PSA density <0.2ng/ml/ml, and Gleason scores (GSs) of ≤6 and ≤2 positive biopsy cores were included and followed in an AS protocol including mp-MRI and MRGB. The mp-MRI and MRGB were performed at <3 and 12 mo after diagnosis. Reclassification was defined as GS >6, >2 positive cores at repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB), presence of PC in >3 separate cancer foci upon both MRGB and TRUSGB, or cT3 tumor on mp-MRI.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Reclassification rates, treatment after discontinuation, and outcome on radical prostatectomy after discontinuing AS were reported. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of reclassification after 1 yr.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

From 2009 to 2013, a total of 111 of 158 patients were consecutively and prospectively included. Around initial diagnosis, 36 patients were excluded from the study protocol; mp-MRI+MRGB reclassified 25/111 (23%) patients, and 11 patients were excluded at own request. Reasons for reclassification were as follows: GS upgrade (15/25, 60%); cT3 disease (3/25, 12%); suspicion of bone metastases (1/25, 4%); and multifocal disease upon MRGB (6/25, 24%). Repeat examinations after 1 yr showed reclassification in 33/75 patients (44%). Reasons were the following: GS upgrade upon TRUSGB (9/33, 27%); volume progression upon TRUSGB (9/33, 27%); cT3 disease upon mp-MRI (1/33, 3%); GS upgrade upon MRGB (1/33, 3%); volume progression upon MRGB (1/33, 3%); multifocal disease upon MRGB (2/33, 6%); and upgrade or upstage upon both TRUSGB and MRGB (10/33, 30%). On logistic regression analysis, the presence of cancer at initial mp-MRI and MRGB examinations was the only predictor of reclassification after 1 yr (odds ratio 5.9, 95% confidence interval 2.0-17.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Although mp-MRI and MRGB are of additional value in the evaluation of PC patients on AS, the value of mp-MRI after 1 yr was limited. As a considerable percentage of GS ≥7 PC after 1 yr was detected only by TRUSGB, TRUSGB cannot be omitted yet.

PATIENT SUMMARY

More aggressive tumors are detected if low-risk prostate cancer patients are additionally monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. However, some high-grade tumors are detected only by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring patients in active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and mpMRI guided biopsies (MRGB) for monitoring an active surveillance (AS) prostate cancer cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One year after initial diagnostic TRUS guided biopsy (TRUS-bx), baseline mpMRI, and enrolment in an AS program patients underwent a one year follow-up comprising the usual TRUS-bx and an mpMRI. Prostate MRI lesions were scored on the five-point PIRADS scale version 2. In cases without TRUS-bx progression, patients with PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions were scheduled for MRGB. Progression in TRUS-bx was defined as Gleason score (Gs) up-grades, >3 tumor positive cores or a maximal cancer core length (MCCL) > 50%. In MRGB, Gs upgrade or a MCCL ≥6 mm Gs 3 + 3 lesions were considered to reflect progression. PSA increase or progression in clinical T-classification alone was not considered clinical progression.

RESULTS

50 patients were included in the study. In total 10 (20%) patients had per definition progression at one year follow-up. Seven patients (7/50 = 14%) had clinical progression based on TRUS-bx. mpMRI identified seven newly emerged PIRADS 4 lesions. Three patients with PIRADS 4 lesions had no sign of TRUS-bx progression, while MRGB revealed significant cancer (Gs 7 (3 + 4) and Gs 8 (3 + 5)). Consequently, seven patients underwent definitive treatment. Of these, six and four had a progression on MRI and TRUS-bx, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that mpMRI is at least equal to TRUS-bx in detecting progression at one year follow-up in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance.

Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a widely adopted strategy to monitor men with low-risk, localized prostate cancer (PCa). Current AS inclusion criteria may misclassify as many as one in four patients. The advent of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and novel PCa biomarkers may offer improved risk stratification. We performed a review of recently published literature to characterize emerging evidence in support of these novel modalities.

Methods

An English literature search was conducted on PubMed for available original investigations on localized PCa, AS, imaging, and biomarkers published within the past 3 years. Our Boolean criteria included the following terms: PCa, AS, imaging, biomarker, genetic, genomic, prospective, retrospective, and comparative. The bibliographies and diagnostic modalities of the identified studies were used to expand our search.

Results

Our review identified 222 original studies. Our expanded search yielded 244 studies. Among these, 70 met our inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests mpMRI offers improved detection of clinically significant PCa, and MRI-fusion technology enhances the sensitivity of surveillance biopsies. Multiple studies demonstrate the promise of commercially available screening assays for prediction of AS failure, and several novel biomarkers show promise in this setting.

Conclusion

In the era of AS for men with low-risk PCa, improved strategies for proper stratification are needed. mpMRI has dramatically enhanced the detection of clinically significant PCa. The advent of novel biomarkers for prediction of aggressive disease and AS failure has shown some initial promise, but further validation is warranted.

From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

To investigate the learning curve of a novice in MRI/TRUS software fusion biopsy and to compare his results with the expert standard at our institution.

METHODS

Overall 126 MRI/TRUS fusion-guided transrectal biopsies were performed using an electromagnetic tracking ultrasonography platform. The learning progress of the novice was evaluated comparing his initial 42 procedures (group A) with his following 42 (group B). The institution's expert standard (group C), which was compared to the novice's groups, was defined by the expert's experience of 42 MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies. Primary learning curve parameters were targeted biopsy detection quotient and biopsy time.

RESULTS

Overall detection of prostate cancer was 64% (27/42), 62% (26/42) and 62% (26/42) in groups A, B and C, respectively. The median target biopsy detection quotient significantly increased (p = 0.04) in group B (0.75, interquartile range (IQR) 0.25-1.0) compared to group A. (0.33, IQR 0.2-0.5). Group C revealed a median detection quotient of 0.5 (IQR 0.25-0.76) that did not differ significantly from the novice's groups (p = 0.2). Median biopsy time was significantly higher in group A (45 min, IQR 33-50 min) compared to groups B (25 min, IQR 23-29 min) and C (24 min, IQR 16-46 min) (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed the individual learning curve of a novice in MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and demonstrated significant learning progress regarding targeted biopsy detection quotient and biopsy time.

Updated clinical results of active surveillance of very-low-risk prostate cancer in Korean men: 8 years of follow-up

Purpose

Update and reanalysis of our experience of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in Korea.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, single-arm, cohort study was initiated in January 2008. Patients were selected according to the following criteria: Gleason sum ≤6 with single positive core with ≤30% core involvement, clinical stage≤T1c, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)≤10 ng/mL, and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results. Follow-up was by PSA measurement every 6 months, prostate biopsies at 1 year and then every 2–3 years, and MRI every year.

Results

A total of 80 patients were treated with AS. Median follow-up was 52 months (range, 6–96 months). Of them, 39 patients (48.8%) discontinued AS for various reasons (17, disease progression; 9, patient preference; 10, watchful waiting due to old age; 3, follow-up loss; 2, death). The probability of progression was 14.0% and 42.9% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Overall survival was 97.5%. PCa-specific survival was 100%. Progression occurred in 5 of 7 patients (71.4%) with a prostate volume less than 30 mL, 7 of 40 patients (17.5%) with a prostate volume of 30 to 50 mL, and 5 of 33 patients (15.2%) with a prostate volume of 50 mL or larger. There were 8 detectable positive lesions on follow-up MRI. Of them, 6 patients (75%) had actual progressed disease.

Conclusions

Small prostate volume was associated with a tendency for cancer progression. MRI was helpful and promising for managing AS. Nevertheless, regular biopsies should be performed. AS is a safe and feasible treatment option for very-low-risk PCa in Korea. However, AS should continue to be used in carefully selected patients.

The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges

OBJECTIVE

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a management strategy for preventing overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer. Selection of patients for AS has traditionally proved challenging and resulted in 20-30% misclassification rates. MRI has potential to help overcome this limitation, broaden selection criteria to increase recruitment, and minimize the invasive nature of AS follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The main issues surrounding MRI and AS are the heterogeneity of inclusion criteria, the definition of significant disease, and agreement about what constitutes radiologic progression. Prospective cohorts with MRI at enrollment and long-term follow-up are required to further address these issues.

Predictors of pathological upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients without hypointense lesions on an apparent diffusion coefficient map of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

To examine the clinicopathological features and identify the predictors of pathological upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients without hypointense lesions on the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map calculated from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 1905 PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2007 and 2015. All ADC images were graded using the five-grade Likert scale; the positive hypointense lesions were graded 4-5. We analyzed 256 patients with low-risk classifications according to D'Amico criteria. Patients were classified into two groups according to the pathologic upgrading in the surgical specimens. The predictive factors for pathologic upgrading were evaluated using a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In 256 patients with low-risk PCa, the percentage of positive cores [odds ratio (OR) 1.09; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.16], the percentage of cancer in the positive cores (OR 1.07, 95 % CI 1.03-1.12), and the presence of hypointensity on an ADC map (OR 2.28; 95 % CI 1.23-4.22) were independent predictors of pathologic upgrading. Notably, 138 of low-risk patients (53.9 %) had no hypointense lesions on an ADC map. Of these 138 patients, the percentage of positive cores (OR 1.09; 95 % CI 1.01-1.18) and the percentage of cancer in the positive cores (OR 1.06; 95 % CI 1.01-1.12) remained independent predictors of pathologic upgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk PCa patients without hypointense lesions on an ADC map, biopsy-related parameters such as the percentage of positive cores and the percentage of cancer in the positive cores were independent predictors of pathological upgrading following radical prostatectomy.

Use of mpMRI in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to limit prostate cancer (PCa) overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which have occurred in response to widespread prostate specific antigen testing, numerous strategies aimed at improved risk stratification of patients with PCa have evolved. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used in concert with prostate specific antigen testing and prostate biopsies to improve sensitivity and specificity of these tests. There are limited data on how multiparametric MRI can be incorporated into active surveillance (AS) protocols.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed literature search of available English language publications on PCa, AS, and MRI was conducted. Appropriate articles were selected and included for review. Bibliographies were also used to expand our search.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from 41 studies were reviewed. AS inclusion criteria and protocols varied among studies, as did indications for use of MRI. Technological improvements are briefly highlighted. Studies are broadly categorized and discussed according to the role of MRI in patient selection, disease staging, and monitoring in AS protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Although improvements in MRI technology have been useful for biopsy guidance and in the diagnosis and staging of PCa, this literature search demonstrates that more prospective research is needed, specifically regarding how this promising technology can be incorporated into AS protocols.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: can we modernize contemporary protocols to improve patient selection and outcomes in the focal therapy era?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the absence of whole gland treatment for prostate cancer, both active surveillance and focal therapy share the common need of requiring a more thorough, detailed and precise analysis of the biological threats within the prostatic parenchyma if one chooses to monitor or selectively eradicate only specific neoplastic targets. In addition, focal therapy utilizes active surveillance post-treatment to monitor the untreated sectors of the prostate. We aim to evaluate the current modalities available to modernize active surveillance protocols in order to distinguish patients who may be safely observed from those who require intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Traditional active surveillance protocols by today's standards are rudimentary given the rapidly evolving technologies now available to clinicians. There is growing evidence for the adoption and use of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to identify and localize prostate cancers of higher stage and grade. In addition, serum markers and prostate tissue DNA, RNA and methylation markers provide novel information that extends beyond Gleason grade to better characterize and define prostate cancer prognosis. Current active surveillance protocols should incorporate these modalities to improve patient stratification to surveillance, focal or whole gland interventions.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance protocols should be modernized to include cancer localization modalities and molecular prognostic markers to improve tumour characterization and better stratify men to surveillance, focal or radical intervention.

Can Confirmatory Biopsy be Omitted in Patients with Prostate Cancer Favorable Diagnostic Features on Active Surveillance?

PURPOSE

We evaluated whether initial diagnostic parameters could predict the confirmatory biopsy result in patients initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer, to determine whether some men at low risk for disease reclassification could be spared unnecessary biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cohort included 392 men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer on initial biopsy undergoing confirmatory biopsy. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression to assess if high grade cancer (Gleason 7 or greater) on confirmatory biopsy could be predicted from initial diagnostic parameters (prostate specific antigen density, magnetic resonance imaging result, percent positive cores, percent cancer in positive cores and total tumor length).

RESULTS

Median patient age was 62 years (IQR 56-66) and 47% of patients had a dominant or focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Of the 392 patients 44 (11%) had high grade cancer on confirmatory biopsy, of whom 39 had Gleason 3+4, 1 had 4+3, 3 had Gleason 8 and 1 had Gleason 9 disease. All predictors were significantly associated with high grade cancer at confirmatory biopsy on univariate analysis. However, in the multivariable model only prostate specific antigen density and total tumor length were significantly associated (AUC 0.85). Using this model to select patients for confirmatory biopsy would generally provide a higher net benefit than performing confirmatory biopsy in all patients, across a wide range of threshold probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

If externally validated, a model based on initial diagnostic criteria could be used to avoid confirmatory biopsy in many patients initiating active surveillance.

Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer

Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.

Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration

Prebiopsy multiparametric prostate MRI (mp-MRI), followed by transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-G) target biopsies (TB) of the prostate is a key combination for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancers (CSPCa), to avoid prostate cancer (PCa) overtreatment. Several techniques are available for guiding TB to the suspicious mp-MRI targets, but the simplest, cheapest, and easiest to learn is “cognitive,” with visual registration of MRI and TRUS data. This review details the successive steps of the method (target detection, mp-MRI reporting, intermodality fusion, TRUS guidance to target, sampling simulation, sampling, TRUS session reporting, and quality insurance), how to optimize each, and the global indications of mp-MRI-targeted biopsies. We discuss the diagnostic yield of visually-registered TB in comparison with conventional biopsy, and TB performed using other registration methods.

Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

There is great interest in using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence regarding the use of MRI in men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Ovid Medline and Embase databases were searched for active surveillance, prostate cancer, and MRI from inception until April 25, 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A lesion on MRI suspicious for prostate cancer (positive MRI) is seen in two-thirds of men otherwise suitable for active surveillance. A positive MRI makes the identification of clinically significant disease at repeat biopsy more likely, especially when biopsies are targeted to suspicious MRI lesions. Radical prostatectomy data show that positive MRI is more likely to be associated with upgrading (Gleason score>3+3) than a negative MRI (43% vs 27%). A positive MRI is not significantly more likely to be associated with upstaging at radical prostatectomy (>T2) than a negative MRI (10% vs 8%). Although MRI is of interest in the monitoring of men on active surveillance, robust data on the use of repeat MRI in active surveillance are lacking. Prospective studies with clear definitions of radiological significance and progression are needed before this approach can be adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI is useful for detection of clinically significant disease at initial assessment of men considering active surveillance. To use MRI as a monitoring tool in surveillance, it will be necessary to define both radiological significance and radiological progression.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This review assesses evidence for the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. MRI at the start of surveillance can detect clinically significant disease in one-third to half of men. There are few data to assess the use of MRI as a monitoring tool during surveillance, so there is a need to define significant disease on MRI and significant changes over time.