Necessity of differentiating small (< 10 mm) and large (≥ 10 mm) PI-RADS 4

Index lesion contouring on prostate MRI for targeted MRI/US fusion biopsy - Evaluation of mismatch between radiologists and urologists

PURPOSE

Mistargeting of focal lesions due to inaccurate segmentations can lead to false-negative findings on MRI-guided targeted biopsies. The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine inter-reader agreement of prostate index lesion segmentations from actual biopsy data between urologists and radiologists.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions between January 2020 and December 2021 were included. Agreement between segmentations on T2w-images between urologists and radiologists was assessed with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95 % Hausdorff distance (95 % HD). Differences in similarity scores were compared using Wilcoxon test. Differences depending on lesion features (size, zonal location, PI-RADS scores, lesion distinctness) were tested with Mann-Whitney U test. Correlation with prostate signal-intensity homogeneity score (PSHS) and lesion size was tested with Spearman's rank correlation.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients (mean age 64.9 ± 7.1y, median serum PSA 6.5 [4.33-10.00]) were included. Mean similarity scores were statistically significantly lower between urologists and radiologists compared to radiologists only (DSC 0.41 ± 0.24 vs. 0.59 ± 0.23, p < 0.01; 95 %HD 6.38 ± 5.45 mm vs. 4.47 ± 4.12 mm, p < 0.01). There was a moderate and strong positive correlation between DSC scores and lesion size for segmentations from urologists and radiologists (ρ = 0.331, p = 0.002) and radiologists only (ρ = 0.501, p < 0.001). Similarity scores were worse in lesions ≤ 10 mm while other lesion features did not significantly influence similarity scores.

CONCLUSION

There is significant mismatch of prostate index lesion segmentations between urologists and radiologists. Segmentation agreement positively correlates with lesion size. PI-RADS scores, zonal location, lesion distinctness, and PSHS show no significant impact on segmentation agreement. These findings could underpin benefits of perilesional biopsies.

The role of the size and number of index lesion in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 4 lesions who underwent in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the contribution of the size and number of the sampled lesions to the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in patients who had PI-RADS 4 lesions.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 159 patients who had PI-RADS 4 lesions and underwent In-bore MRI-Guided prostate biopsy were included. Patients with a lesion classified as Grade Group 2 and above were considered to have CSPC. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the factors affecting the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and CSPC.

RESULTS

A great majority (86.8%) of the patients were biopsy-naïve. About three-fourths (71.7%) had PCa, and half (54.1%) had CSPC. When the patients were divided into three groups according to the index lesion size (< 5 mm, 5-10 mm, and > 10 mm), the prevalence of PCa was 64.3, 67.5, and 82.4% and the prevalence of CSPC was 42.9, 51.2, and 64.7%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age, index lesion size, prostate volume (< 50 ml) and being biopsy-naïve were found significant for PCa, while age and prostate volume (< 50 ml) were significant for CSPC.

CONCLUSION

The number of lesions was found to be insignificant in predicting PCa and CSPC. While the size of PI-RADS 4 lesions was significant in predicting PCa, it had no significance in detecting CSPC.

How to Improve TRUS-Guided Target Biopsy following Prostate MRI

TRUS is a basic imaging modality when radiologists or urologists perform cognitive fusion or image fusion biopsy. This modality plays the role of the background images to add to an operator's cognitive function or MRI images. Operators need to know how to make TRUS protocols for lesion detection or targeting. Tumor location, size, and shape on TRUS are different from those on MRI because the scan axis is different. TRUS findings of peripheral or transition tumors are not well known to radiologists and urologists. Moreover, it remains unclear if systematic biopsy is necessary after a tumor is targeted. The purpose of this review is to introduce new TRUS protocols, new imaging features, new biopsy techniques, and to assess the necessity of systematic biopsy for improving biopsy outcomes.

Is transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy necessary after PI-RADS 4 is targeted?

Purpose: Target biopsy is usually performed in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4. Still, it is unclear if adding systematic biopsy to target biopsy influences cancer detection. The aim was to assess the role of systematic biopsy for detecting significant cancer after PI-RADS 4 is targeted.Methods: Between March 2014 and November 2018, 182 men with PI-RADS 4 underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. Systematic biopsy was added to target biopsy in 128 men (Group I) by May 2018 because PI-RADS 4 was not completely visible on TRUS, while it was done in 54 men (Group II) from June 2018 regardless of lesion visibility. Significant cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between the groups regarding target and systematic biopsies. Major complication rate was also compared. Significant cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥7 tumor. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher’s exact were used for statistical analysis.Results: The significant CDRs were 21.9% (28/128) in the Group I and 38.9% (21/54) in the Group II (P= 0.0273). The significant cancers of Group I and II were missed in two (1.6%) and in one (1.9%) by target biopsy, respectively. Major complication rates of these groups were 0.8% (1/128) and 0% (0/54), respectively (P= 0.999).Conclusion: Systematic biopsy should be added to target biopsy even though PI-RADS 4 is clearly visible on ultrasound. A significant number of significant cancers are detected with systematic biopsy.

New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting

Purpose

To determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.

Materials and Methods

Between December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who was familiar with the new TRUS findings and biopsy techniques. During the same period, 179 men underwent magnetic resonance imaging–TRUS image fusion or cognitive biopsy by radiologist B, who was unfamiliar with the new biopsy techniques. Prior to biopsy, both radiologists knew MRI findings such as the location, size, and shape of PI-RADS 4 or 5. We recorded how many target biopsies were performed without systematic biopsy and how many of these detected higher Gleason score (GS) than those detected by systematic biopsy. The numbers of biopsy cores were also obtained. Fisher Exact or Mann–Whitney test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

For PI-RADS 4, target biopsy alone was performed in 0% (0/84) by radiologist A and 0.8% (1/127) by radiologist B (p>0.9999). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 57.7% (30/52) by radiologist A and 29.5% (23/78) by radiologist B (p = 0.0019). For PI-RADS 5, target biopsy alone was performed in 29.0% (9/31) by radiologist A and 1.9% (1/52) by radiologist B (p = 0.0004). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 50.0% (14/28) by radiologist A and 18.2% (8/44) by radiologist B (p = 0.0079). Radiologist A sampled fewer biopsy cores than radiologist B (p = 0.0008 and 0.0023 for PI-RADS 4 and 5), respectively.

Conclusions

PI-RADS 4 or 5 can be more precisely targeted if the new TRUS biopsy techniques are applied.

Ancillary imaging and clinical features for the characterization of prostate lesions: A proposed approach to reduce false positives

The relatively low specificity and positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) can lead to considerable false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies. The aim of this study was to propose ancillary features (AFs) indicating clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) or benign tissues in PI-RADS category ≥3 lesions and determine the usefulness of these AFs in reducing false-positive assessments of suspicious lesions in men at csPCa risk. This was a retrospective study, which included 199 men. A 3T, including turbo spin echo T₂ -weighted, echo-planar diffusion-weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images, was used. Five AFs (prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 ng/mL² ; size ≥10 mm; heterogeneous T2 signal intensity; circumscribed nodule in the junction of peripheral and transition zone; and DCE time curves) indicating csPCa or non-csPCa were evaluated by three independent readers. The sensitivity and specificity of each AF were calculated. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine significant AFs. The reduction in positive call rates and csPCa detection rates with combined AF use were calculated and compared with the findings obtained with PI-RADS use alone. The sensitivities and specificities of the AFs indicating csPCa were 72.1%-96.5% and 27.4%-75.2% for reader 1, 66.3%-96.5% and 23.9%-62.0% for reader 2, and 67.4%-96.5% and 34.5%-78.8% for reader 3, with moderate to substantial inter-reader agreement (Fleiss κ, 0.551-0.643). The combined use of two or more AFs for assessing PI-RADS ≥3 lesions resulted in a 19.6%-30.7% reduction in positive calls (p < .05) compared to PI-RADS use alone while preserving the csPCa detection rates (p ≥ .06) for three readers. The use of AFs in combination with PI-RADS can reduce positive calls and false positives without csPCa under-detection.

Equivocal PI-RADS Three Lesions on Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Risk Stratification Strategies to Avoid MRI-Targeted Biopsies

We aimed to investigate the relation between largest lesion diameter, prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), age, and the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using first-time targeted biopsy (TBx) in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 index lesions. A total of 292 men (2013-2019) from two referral centers were included. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. The discrimination and clinical utility of the built model was assessed by the area under the receiver operation curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis, respectively. A higher PSA-D and higher age were significantly related to a higher risk of detecting csPCa, while the largest index lesion diameter was not. The discrimination of the model was 0.80 (95% CI 0.73-0.87). When compared to a biopsy-all strategy, decision curve analysis showed a higher net benefit at threshold probabilities of ≥2%. Accepting a missing ≤5% of csPCa diagnoses, a risk-based approach would result in 34% of TBx sessions and 23% of low-risk PCa diagnoses being avoided. In men with PI-RADS 3 index lesions scheduled for first-time TBx, the balance between the number of TBx sessions, the detection of low-risk PCa, and the detection of csPCa does not warrant a biopsy-all strategy. To minimize the risk of missing the diagnosis of csPCa but acknowledging the need of avoiding unnecessary TBx sessions and overdiagnosis, a risk-based approach is advisable.

Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the added value of focal saturation biopsy and systematic biopsy (SBx) differ according to index lesion size, and to compare the current guidelines for csPCa detection.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive men who underwent MRI and subsequent SBx and MRI-targeted biopsy (TBx) for a suspicious lesion between April 2019 and February 2020. Lesion visibility on transrectal ultrasound (US) and added value of focal saturation biopsy and SBx were compared according to index lesion size using chi-square and McNemar tests. csPCa detection rates and the proportion of biopsy-indicated men were compared among four biopsy strategies based on current guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 313 men evaluated (median age, 65; interquartile range 60‒71), csPCa was detected in 110 (35%). In lesions < 10 mm, greater US invisibility (42.7% of lesions < 10 mm versus 20.0% of lesions ≥ 10 mm; p < 0.001) and higher added value of focal saturation biopsy and SBx (11.1% and 17.1% in lesions < 10 mm versus 4.2% and 6.3% in lesions ≥ 10 mm) were observed, compared with lesions ≥ 10 mm. Consideration of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density > 0.15 ng/mL/mL as a cutoff in unsuspicious MRI led to a 14% reduction (44/313) in men who needed biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Determination of the biopsy strategy in terms of the need for focal saturation biopsy or SBx should be made considering lesion size. The use of PSA density in non-suspicious MRI can lead to a reduction in biopsy-indicated men.

New Biopsy Techniques and Imaging Features of Transrectal Ultrasound for Targeting PI-RADS 4 and 5 Lesions

PURPOSE

To introduce new biopsy techniques and imaging features of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) for targeting Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 and 5 lesions Methods: TRUS-guided targeted and/or systematic biopsies were performed in 432 men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions following magnetic resonance imaging examination. A TRUS operator who was familiar with the new techniques and imaging features performed lesion detection. Overall and significant cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared among the men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. The CDRs in the peripheral and transition zones were compared. Additionally, we assessed whether targeted or systematic biopsies contributed to cancer detection. The standard reference was a biopsy examination.

RESULTS

The overall CDRs in the men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were 49.5% (139/281) and 74.8% (113/151) (p < 0.0001); significant CDRs were 33.1% (93/281) and 58.3% (88/151) (p < 0.0001); and CDRs in the peripheral and transition zones were 53.6% (187/349) and 78.3% (65/83) (p < 0.0001), respectively. Of the 139 men with clinically significant cancer PI-RADS 4 lesions, 107 (77.0%) were diagnosed by targeted biopsy, 5 (3.6%) by systematic biopsy, and 27 (19.4%) by both. Of the 113 men with clinically significant cancer PI-RADS 5 lesions, 97 (85.8%) were diagnosed by targeted biopsy, 3 (2.7%) by systematic biopsy, and 13 (11.5%) by both.

CONCLUSIONS

Most PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions can be targeted with TRUS if the new techniques and imaging features are applied.