Head-to-head comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI of the prostate before robot-assisted transperineal fusion prostate biopsy

Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.

The learning curve for robotic-assisted transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy

Transperineal fusion prostate biopsy has a considerable learning curve (LC). Robotic-assisted transperineal MRI/Ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (RA-TP-FBx) may have an easier LC due to automatization. We aimed to assess the LC of RA-TP-FBx and analyze its most difficult steps. We prospectively analyzed cases randomized to a biopsy-naïve urology resident, the chief resident, and an expert urologist in RA-TP-FBx (controls). We also analyzed consecutive cases in the LC of the expert. The LC was defined by procedure time, PCa detection rate (including stratification by PI-RADS), entrustable professional activities (EPA) assessment scores, and the NASA task load index. We collectively performed 246 RA-TP-FBx with the Mona Lisa device. Procedure time for residents decreased steeply from maximum 53 min to minimum 10 min, while the mean procedure time for the expert was 9 min (range 17-5 min). PCa detection for PI-RADS-4 lesions was 57% for the naïve resident, 61% for the chief resident and 62% for the expert. There was also no difference in Pca detection for PI-RADS-4 lesions when comparing the first and second half of the experts' biopsies (p = 0.8). Maximum EPA score was registered after 22 cases. Workload steeply declined. Proficient RA-TP-FBx performance appears feasible after 22 cases regardless of previous experience.

Current magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer

Recent developments in multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy have made it possible to detect clinically significant cancers more accurately and efficiently than ever before. Furthermore, software that enables easy MRI/US image fusion has been developed and is already available on the market, and this has provided a tailwind for the spread of MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic strategies. Such precise diagnosis of prostate cancer localization is essential for highly accurate focal therapy. In addition, a recent large-scale study applying MRI to community screening for prostate cancer has reported its usefulness. By contrast, concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the existence of inter-reader variability in MRI diagnosis, and issues with current MRI-targeted biopsy have emerged. In this article, we review the development of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to date and the current issues and discuss future directions.

Bi-parametric prostate MRI with a recall system for contrast enhanced imaging: Improving accessibility while maintaining quality

PURPOSE

To review the efficacy of a recall system for bi-parametric non-contrast prostate MRI (bp-MRI).

METHODS

A bi-parametric protocol was instituted in July 2020 for all patients who had a prostate MRI requested, excluding those after treatment of prostate cancer, patients with hip prosthesis or pacemaker, and those who lived out-of-town. The protocol consisted of tri-planar T2-weighted and diffusion weighted images (DWI) (b = 50, 800 s/mm2 for ADC map; b = 1,500 s/mm2 acquired separately) in accordance with the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 guidelines. After interpretation of bp-MRI exams, patients with equivocal (PI-RADS 3) lesions in peripheral zone (PZ) or any technical limitations were recalled for contrast administration.

RESULTS

Out of 909 bp-MRI scans performed from July 2020 to April 2021, only 52 (5.7 %) were recalled, of which 46 (88.5 %) attended. Amongst these, 41/52 (78.8 %) were recalled for PZ PI-RADS 3 lesions, while the rest of 11 (21.2 %) cases were recalled for technical reasons. Mean time to subsequent recall scan was 11.6 days. On assessment of post-contrast imaging, 29/46 (63 %) cases were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 while 17/46 (37 %) remained PI-RADS 3. This system avoided contrast-agent use in 857 patients, with contrast cost savings of €64,620 (US$68,560) and 214 hours 15 minutes of scanner time was saved. This allowed 255 additional bp-MRI scans to be performed, reducing the waitlist from 1 year to 2-3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

A bi-parametric prostate MRI protocol with a robust recall system for contrast administration not only saved time eliminating the marked backlog but was also more cost efficient without compromising the quality of patient care.

A Systematic Review of the Current Status of Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Images Fusion Software Platforms for Transperineal Prostate Biopsies

Given this new context, our objective is to recognize the suitability of the currently available software for image fusion and the reported series using the transperineal route, as well as to generate new evidence on the complementarity of the directed and systematic biopsies, which has been established through the transrectal approach.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review, registered in Prospero (CRD42022375619), began with a bibliographic search that was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and the studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy were followed. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. In addition, a Google search of all currently available fusion platforms was performed. Our Google search found 11 different commercially available robots to perform transperineal image fusion biopsies, of which 10 devices have published articles supporting their diagnostic effectiveness in transperineal prostate biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles were selected and the characteristics and results of the biopsies of 11,313 patients were analyzed. The pooled mean age was 66.5 years (63-69). The mean pooled PSA level was 7.8 ng/mL (5.7-10.8). The mean pooled prostate volume was 45.4 cc. (34-56). The mean pooled PSA density was 0.17 (0.12-0.27). The overall cancer detection rate for all prostate cancers was 61.4%, while for csPCa it was 47.8%. PCa detection rate was more effective than that demonstrated in the systematic transrectal biopsy. However, the detection of csPCa in the systematic biopsy was only 9.5% in the reported series. To standardize our review, we grouped prostate cancer screening results according to the population studied and the software used. When the same populations were compared between elastic and rigid software, we found that rigid biopsies had a higher csPCa detection rate than biopsies with elastic fusion systems.

CONCLUSION

Platforms performing prostate biopsy using transperineal image fusion have better detection rates of csPCa than systematic transrectal biopsies. Rigid fusion systems have a better csPCa detection rate than elastic ones. We found no diagnostic differences between the different types of robotic systems currently available. The complementarity of systematic biopsy has also been demonstrated in transperineal imaging fusion biopsies.