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

Role of MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. In this review, we will explore the incorporation of MRI into active surveillance protocols, detailing its impact on clinical decision-making and patient management and discussing how it aligns with current guidelines and practice patterns. The role of MRI in this patient population continues to evolve over time, and we will discuss some of the recent advancements in the field and highlight potential areas for future research endeavors.

Imaging in Diagnosis and Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Review

Importance

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly important option for managing low-risk and select intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Although imaging, particularly multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), has emerged in the prebiopsy pathway for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the role of mpMRI in patient selection for AS and the necessity of prostate biopsies during AS remain poorly defined. Despite well-founded biopsy schedules, there has been substantial investigation into whether imaging may supplant the need for prostate biopsies during AS. This review aimed to summarize the contemporary role of imaging in the diagnosis and surveillance of prostate cancer.

Observations

Multiparametric MRI is the most established form of imaging in prostate cancer, with routine prebiopsy use being shown to help urologists distinguish between clinically significant and clinically insignificant disease. The visibility of these lesions on mpMRI closely correlates with their behavior, with visible disease portending a worse prognosis. Combined with other clinical data, risk calculators may better delineate patients with higher-risk disease and exclude them from undergoing AS. While current evidence suggests that mpMRI cannot replace the need for prostate biopsy during AS due to the possibility of missing higher-risk disease, the addition of prostate biomarkers may help to reduce the frequency of these biopsies. The role of prostate-specific antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography is still emerging but has shown promising early results as an adjunct to mpMRI in initial diagnosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Imaging in prostate cancer helps to better select patients appropriate for AS, and future studies may strengthen the predictive capabilities of risk calculators. Multiparametric MRI has been shown to be imperative to rationalizing biopsies for patients enrolled in AS. However, heterogeneity in the evidence of mpMRI during AS has suggested that further prospective studies and randomized clinical trials, particularly in homogenizing reporting standards, may reveal a more defined role in monitoring disease progression.

Standard Repeat Biopsies During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Are They Necessary in the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Era?

Active surveillance (AS) remains an important part of the efforts to decrease overtreatment of prostate cancer. The increasing use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the need for repeat biopsy during AS. If MRI findings remain unchanged and clinical characteristics such as prostate-specific antigen density are favourable, the relative risks and benefits of repeat biopsy should be discussed with individual patients.

The number of involved regions by prostate adenocarcinoma predicts histopathology concordance between radical prostatectomy specimens and MRI/ultrasound-fusion targeted prostate biopsy

Introduction

The prostate biopsy (PB) results should be concordant with prostatectomy histopathology to avoid overestimating or underestimating the disease, leading to inappropriate or undertreatment of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Since the introduction of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnostic pathway of PCa, most studies have shown that MRI/Ultrasound fusion-guided (MRI-fusion) PB improves concordance with histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens. This study aimed to evaluate the improvement in concordance of prostatectomy specimens with PB histopathology obtained using the MRI-fusion approach compared with the 12-core TRUS-Bx and to identify the variables influencing this.

Patients and methods

The study included 218 men who were diagnosed with PCa by PB and underwent radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2023. The patients were grouped based on the biopsy method: 115 underwent TRUS-Bx, and 103 underwent MRI-fusion PB. The histopathological grading of these biopsy approaches was compared with that of radical prostatectomy specimens. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of various criteria on histopathological concordance.

Results

In patients with unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk PCa, MRI-fusion PB showed significantly better concordance with prostatectomy histopathology than TRUS-Bx (73.1% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.018). MRI-fusion PB had a significantly lower downgrading of prostatectomy histopathology than TRUS-Bx in all grade categories. The number of cancer-involved regions of the prostate is an independent predictor for concordance (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.04-1.52, p = 0.02) and downgrading (OR = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.24-0.83, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Using an MRI-fusion PB improves histopathological concordance in patients with unfavorable intermediate and high-risk PCa. It reduces the downgrading rate of prostatectomy histopathology compared with TRUS-Bx in all grade categories. The number of cancer-involved regions is an independent predictor of the concordance between biopsy and final histopathology after prostatectomy and post-prostatectomy histopathology downgrading. Our findings could assist in selecting PCa patients for AS and focal treatment based on the histopathology obtained from the MRI-fusion PB.

Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance?

Active surveillance (AS) is a conservative management option recommended for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and selected cases with intermediate-risk PCa. The adoption of prostate MRI in the primary diagnostic setting has sparked interest in its application during AS. This review aims to examine the role and performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) across the entire AS pathway, from initial stratification to follow-up, also relative to the utilization of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria. Given the high negative predictive value of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa), robust evidence supports its use in patient selection and risk stratification at the time of diagnosis or confirmatory biopsy. However, conflicting results have been observed when using MRI in evaluating disease progression during follow-up. Key areas requiring clarification include addressing the clinical significance of MRI-negative csPCa, optimizing MRI quality, determining the role of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) or mpMRI protocols, and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for improved performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays an essential role in the selection, stratification, and follow up of patients in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. However, owing to existing limitations, it cannot fully replace biopsies in the context of AS. KEY POINTS: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become a crucial tool in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Conflicting results have been observed regarding multiparametric MRI efficacy in assessing disease progression. Standardizing MRI-guided protocols will be critical in addressing current limitations in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Deep learning-accelerated T2WI of the prostate for transition zone lesion evaluation and extraprostatic extension assessment

This bicenter retrospective analysis included 162 patients who had undergone prostate biopsy following prebiopsy MRI, excluding those with PCa identified only in the peripheral zone (PZ). DLR T2WI achieved a 69% reduction in scan time relative to TSE T2WI. The intermethod agreement between the two T2WI sets in terms of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification and extraprostatic extension (EPE) grade was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and diagnostic performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was found in 74 (45.7%) patients. Both T2WI methods showed high intermethod agreement for the overall PI-RADS classification (ICC: 0.907-0.949), EPE assessment (ICC: 0.925-0.957) and lesion size measurement (ICC: 0.980-0.996). DLR T2WI and TSE T2WI showed similar AUCs (0.666-0.814 versus 0.684-0.832) for predicting EPE. The AUCs for detecting csPCa with DLR T2WI (0.834-0.935) and TSE T2WI (0.891-0.935) were comparable in 139 patients with TZ lesions with no significant differences (P > 0.05). The findings suggest that DLR T2WI is an efficient alternative for TZ lesion assessment, offering reduced scan times without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

Rationale for adopting a combination of monoparametric MRI with the prostate-specific antigen in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison with standard biparametric and multiparametric MRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare prostate monoparametric MRI (monoMRI), which uses only diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), with biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant cancer (CSC) and to evaluate the effect of the combination of monoMRI results and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level.

METHODS

In this study, 193 patients (average age 70.5 years; average PSA 7.9 ng/mL) underwent prebiopsy MRI and subsequent prostate biopsy from January 2020 to February 2022. Two radiologists independently reviewed the 3 MRI protocols using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Interreader agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and diagnostic performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The Youden index was used to determine the new cutoff value of PSA for detecting CSCs in patients with negative monoMRI results.

RESULTS

CSC was confirmed in 109 patients (56.5%). The interreader agreement on monoMRI (ICC = 0.798) was comparable to that on bpMRI and mpMRI (ICC = 0.751 and 0.714, respectively). ROC curve analysis of the 3 protocols revealed no difference in detecting CSCs (P > 0.05). Applying a new PSA cutoff value (9.5 and 7.4 ng/mL, respectively) in monoMRI-negative patients improved the sensitivity of monoMRI from 89.9% to 96.3% for Reader 1, and from 95.4% to 99.1% for Reader 2.

CONCLUSIONS

MonoMRI based solely on DWI demonstrated similar diagnostic performance to bpMRI and mpMRI in detecting CSCs, and the combination of PSA level with monoMRI has the potential to effectively triage patients with a high likelihood of CSCs.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Monoparametric MRI conducted only with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), may show comparable performance to biparametric and multiparametric MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. In patients with negative monoparametric MRI results, implementing a new PSA cutoff value to determine the need for a biopsy could decrease the number of missed prostate cancer.

ESR Essentials: using the right scoring system in prostate MRI-practice recommendations by ESUR

MRI has gained prominence in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) being widely used for cancer detection. Beyond PI-RADS, other MRI-based scoring tools have emerged to address broader aspects within the PCa domain. However, the multitude of available MRI-based grading systems has led to inconsistencies in their application within clinical workflows. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) assesses the likelihood of clinically significant radiological changes of PCa during active surveillance, and the Prostate Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) scoring system evaluates the risk of local recurrence after whole-gland therapies with curative intent. Underlying any system is the requirement to assess image quality using the Prostate Imaging Quality Scoring System (PI-QUAL). This article offers practicing radiologists a comprehensive overview of currently available scoring systems with clinical evidence supporting their use for managing PCa patients to enhance consistency in interpretation and facilitate effective communication with referring clinicians. KEY POINTS: Assessing image quality is essential for all prostate MRI interpretations and the PI-QUAL score represents  the standardized tool for this purpose. Current urological clinical guidelines for prostate cancer diagnosis and localization recommend adhering to the PI-RADS recommendations. The PRECISE and PI-RR scoring systems can be used for assessing radiological changes of prostate cancer during active surveillance and the likelihood of local recurrence after radical treatments respectively.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Prostate cancer - Diagnosis and management of localised disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Oncology Committee of the French Urology Association is to propose updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2022 to 2024 was conducted by the CCAFU on the elements of diagnosis and therapeutic management of localized PCa, evaluating references with their level of evidence.

RESULTS

The recommendations set out the genetics, epidemiology and diagnostic methods of PCa, as well as the concepts of screening and early detection. MRI, the reference imaging test for localized cancer, is recommended before prostate biopsies are performed. Molecular imaging is an option for disease staging. Performing biopsies via the transperineal route reduces the risk of infection. Active surveillance is the standard treatment for tumours with a low risk of progression. Therapeutic methods are described in detail, and recommended according to the clinical situation.

CONCLUSION

This update of French recommendations should help to improve the management of localized PCa.

Outcomes of active surveillance for Japanese patients with prostate cancer (PRIAS-JAPAN)

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcomes of repeat biopsies, metastasis and survival in the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS)-JAPAN study, a prospective observational study for Japanese patients, initiated in 2010.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

At the beginning, inclusion criteria were initially low-risk patients, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) <0.2, and ≤2 positive biopsy cores. As from 2014, GS3+4 has also been allowed for patients aged 70 years and over. Since January 2021, the age limit for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 4 cases was removed, and eligibility criteria were expanded to PSA ≤20 ng/mL, PSAD <0.25 nd/mL/cc, unlimited number of positive GS 3 + 3 cores, and positive results for fewer than half of the total number of cores for GS 3 + 4 cases if magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy was performed at study enrolment or subsequent follow-up. For patients eligible for active surveillance, PSA tests were performed every 3 months, rectal examination every 6 months, and biopsies at 1, 4, 7 and 10 years, followed by every 5 years thereafter. Patients with confirmed pathological reclassification were recommended for secondary treatments.

RESULTS

As of February 2024, 1302 patients were enrolled in AS; 1274 (98%) met the eligibility criteria. The median (interquartile range) age, PSA level, PSAD, and number of positive cores were 69 (64-73) years, 5.3 (4.5-6.6) ng/mL, 0.15 (0.12-0.17) ng/mL, and 1 (1-2), respectively. The clinical stage was T1c in 1089 patients (86%) and T2 in 185 (15%). The rates of acceptance by patients for the first, second, third and fourth re-biopsies were 83%, 64%, 41% and 22%, respectively. The pathological reclassification rates for the first, second, third and fourth re-biopsies were 29%, 30%, 35% and 25%, respectively. The 1-, 5- and 10-year persistence rates were 77%, 45% and 23%, respectively. Six patients developed metastasis, and one patient died from prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Pathological reclassification was observed in approximately 30% of the patients during biopsy; however, biopsy acceptance rates decreased over time. Although metastasis occurred in six patients, only one death from prostate cancer was recorded.

MRI at diagnostic versus confirmatory biopsy during MRI-based active surveillance of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance (AS) is a management strategy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may impact upgrading rates, but there is mixed evidence on the appropriate timing to introduce mpMRI. We evaluated timing of initial mpMRI use for patients on AS and compared upgrading and intervention rates for AS candidates who received initial mpMRI before diagnostic biopsy vs. confirmatory biopsy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients enrolled in AS captured by the Prospective Loyola Urology mpMRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort which captures men undergoing MRI-fusion prostate biopsy. We included patients enrolled in AS between January 2014 and October 2022. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent MRI-fusion prostate biopsy while on AS at our institution. The cohort was stratified by men who underwent first mpMRI prior to diagnostic biopsy (MRI-DBx), confirmatory biopsy (MRI-CBx), or a subsequent surveillance biopsy. Oncologic outcomes including pathologic reclassification, intervention-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 346 patients identified on AS, 94 (27.2%) received mpMRI at the time of diagnostic biopsy, 182 (52.6%) at confirmatory biopsy, and 70 (20.2%) at a later biopsy. At confirmatory biopsy (median 14 months), there was no difference in upgrading (HR 0.95, P = 0.78) or intervention rates (HR 0.97, P = 0.88) between MRI-DBx and MRI-CBx. PI-RADS score on initial mpMRI was associated with upgrading during AS follow-up relative to men with negative mpMRI (HR 4.20 (P = 0.04), 3.24 (P < 0.001), and 1.99 (P < 0.001) for PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3, respectively), and PSA density was associated with intervention (HR 1.52, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

mpMRI can serve as a prognostic tool to select and monitor AS patients, but there was no difference in upgrading or intervention rates based on initial timing of MRI.

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.

PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty.

METHODS

A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS.

The importance and future of prostate MRI report templates: improving oncological care

The radiologist's report is crucial for guiding care post-imaging, with ongoing advancements in report construction. Recent studies across various modalities and organ systems demonstrate enhanced clarity and communication through structured reports. This article will explain the benefits of disease-state specific reporting templates using prostate MRI as the model system. We identify key reporting components for prostate cancer detection and staging as well as imaging in active surveillance and following therapy. We discuss relevant reporting systems including PI-QUAL, PI-RADS, PRECISE, PI-RR and PI-FAB systems. Additionally, we examine optimal reporting structure including disruptive technologies such as graphical reporting and using artificial intelligence to improve report clarity and applicability.

Enhancing surgical outcomes: accurate identification and removal of prostate cancer with B7-H3-targeted NIR-II molecular imaging

PURPOSE

One of the main reasons for prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence is the difficulty in identifying and removing cancerous lesions during surgery. Accurately localizing and excising cancerous tissue remains a significant challenge. The second near-infrared window (NIR-II, 1000-1700 nm) fluorescence offers enhanced resolution, a high signal-to-noise ratio, and the potential for deeper tissue penetration. However, this technology is not currently employed for intraoperative imaging of PCa. This study aims to construct a new NIR-II probe targeting B7-H3 (AbB7-H3-800CW) for accurate intraoperative identification and resection of PCa.

METHODS

Based on the differential expression of B7-H3 in PCa, we designed a novel imaging probe to accurately identify and guide the resection of preclinical PCa models and ex vivo human PCa tissues using NIR-II fluorescence imaging technology.

RESULTS

Analyzing tissue samples from 60 clinical cases of PCa, along with benign prostatic hyperplasia and normal prostate tissue from 22 cases, we observed a significant difference in B7-H3 protein expression levels (P < 0.001). Subcutaneous and orthotopic mouse models of PCa were imaged using NIR-II fluorescence after AbB7-H3-800CW injection, showing promising results with successful tumor targeting and high-contrast images achieved within 24-48 h post-injection. The imaging also enabled the detection of occult PCa lesions approximately 1 mm in diameter. In addition, imaging analysis of human PCa and adjacent tissues using AbB7-H3-800CW incubation revealed that cancer tissues exhibited a significantly higher fluorescence intensity than adjacent tissues (P < 0.05), which was conducive to the evaluation of tumor resection margin in vitro.

CONCLUSION

The findings revealed that B7-H3 was a compelling imaging target for PCa. The AbB7-H3-800CW molecular imaging probe is capable of accurately identifying PCa lesions and guiding their removal. This approach can potentially reduce the rate of surgical margins under NIR-II fluorescence guidance.

'It Just Makes Sense to Me': A qualitative study exploring patient decision-making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Introduction

Although prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used in the diagnosis, staging and active surveillance of prostate cancer, little is known about patient perspectives on MRI.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Interviews focused on experiences with and knowledge of prostate MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy during active surveillance. We purposively sampled patients who received prostate MRI as part of their clinical care, conducted interviews until reaching thematic saturation and performed conventional content analysis to analyse data.

Results

Twenty patients aged 51-79 years (mean = 68 years) participated in the study. At diagnosis, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and three (15%) had a grade group 2 tumour. Overall, participants viewed prostate MRI as a valuable tool that accurately localizes and monitors prostate cancer over time, and they considered prostate MRI central to active surveillance monitoring. We identified five thematic categories related to MRI use: (1) the experiential aspects of undergoing an MRI scan; (2) the experience of visualizing one's own prostate and prostate cancer; (3) adequacy of provider explanations of MRI results; (4) confidence in prostate MRI in decision-making; and (5) the role of prostate MRI in longitudinal follow-up, including an interest in using MRI to modify the timing of, or replace, prostate biopsy.

Conclusion

Patients value prostate MRI as a tool that enhances their confidence in the initial diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer. This work can inform future studies to optimize patient experience, education and counselling during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

The Association between Urine N-Glycome and Prognosis after Initial Therapy for Primary Prostate Cancer

Next to prostate-specific antigen, no biochemical biomarkers have been implemented to guide patient follow-up after primary therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We evaluated the prognostic potential of urine N-glycome in terms of event-free survival (EFS) in patients undergoing primary therapy for PCa. The prognostic features of the urine N-glycosylation profile at diagnosis, assessed in 77 PCa patients, were determined in terms of EFS next to standard clinical parameters. The majority of patients were diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≤ 3 (82%) T1-2 tumors (79%) and without pelvic lymph node invasion (96%). The patients underwent active surveillance (14%), robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (48%), or external beam radiotherapy (37%). Decreased ratios of biantennary core-fucosylation were noted in patients who developed an event, which was linked to a shorter EFS in both the intention-to-treat cohort and all subcohort analyses. Combining the urine N-glycan biomarker with the D'Amico Risk Classification for PCa resulted in an improved nomogram for patient classification after primary therapy. The rate of urine N-glycan biantennary core-fucosylation, typically linked to more aggressive disease status, is lower in patients who eventually developed an event following primary therapy and subsequently in patients with a worse EFS. The combination of urine N-glycan biomarkers together with clinical parameters could, therefore, improve the post-therapy follow-up of patients with PCa.

Performance of standard systematic biopsy versus MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using the Navigo® system in contemporary cohort

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of multi parameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in combination with MRI/TRUS fusion and systematic biopsy resulted in improved detection of prostate cancer. The aim of the current study was to document the performance of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate using the Navigo™ software in a contemporary cohort of patients from nonreferral centers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a two centers prospective data collection (2014-2020) for men with clinically suspected Pca and patients on active surveillance for low-risk Pca that were referred for TRUS biopsy after performing mpMRI of the prostate with a visible lesion. The primary outcome was detection of clinically significant cancer (csPca) defined as ISUP grade group ≥2. Patients were stratified according to biopsy technique and PI-RADS category.

RESULTS

The study group included 236 patients of whom 129 (54.9%) were diagnosed with Pca and 82 (34.7%) with csPca (GG ≥ 2) on combined biopsy. The overall detection of csPca was 31% for targeted vs. 25.4% for systematic biopsy with an absolute difference of 5.6% in favor of the fusion technique. No significant difference between the two techniques was observed for detection of benign prostate or GG1 disease. The improved performance of the targeted approach was noted only in patients with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Of the patients with csPca 10 (12%) were diagnosed only by the systematic biopsy while 20 (24%) were detected only in the fusion biopsy. Systematic biopsy of prostate lobe without MRI lesion detected only 2 cases (∼1%) with high grade disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of csPca by mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using the 3D Navigo™ system is feasible. The targeted approach outperforms the systematic one, however the later technique also detects high risk disease and should be included in the biopsy procedure. The overall detection rate (34.9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer by both targeted and systematic sampling is relatively low.

Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent decades, there has been an increasing role for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update and outline future directions for the role of MRI in the detection of csPC.

RECENT FINDINGS

In diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer pre-biopsy, advances include our understanding of MRI-targeted biopsy, the role of biparametric MRI (non-contrast) and changing indications, for example the role of MRI in screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, the role of MRI in identifying csPC is maturing, with emphasis on standardization of MRI reporting in active surveillance (PRECISE), clinical staging (EPE grading, MET-RADS-P) and recurrent disease (PI-RR, PI-FAB). Future directions of prostate MRI in detecting csPC include quality improvement, artificial intelligence and radiomics, positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI and MRI-directed therapy.

SUMMARY

The utility of MRI in detecting csPC has been demonstrated in many clinical scenarios, initially from simply diagnosing csPC pre-biopsy, now to screening, active surveillance, clinical staging, and detection of recurrent disease. Continued efforts should be undertaken not only to emphasize the reporting of prostate MRI quality, but to standardize reporting according to the appropriate clinical setting.

High-resolution Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Detect Changes in Tumor Size and ADC, and Predict Adverse Biopsy Histology during Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

Majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer can be managed with active surveillance (AS). This study evaluates a high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging (HR-DWI) technique to predict adverse biopsy histology (AH), defined as Gleason score ≥7 on any biopsy or ≥3 increase in number of positive biopsy cores on systematic biopsies. We test the hypothesis that high-grade disease and progressing disease undergo subtle changes during even short intervals that can be detected by HR-DWI.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

In a prospective clinical trial, serial multiparametric MRIs, incorporating HR-DWI and standard DWI (S-DWI) were performed approximately 12 months apart prior to prostate biopsy (n = 59). HR-DWI, which uses reduced field-of-view and motion compensation techniques, was compared with S-DWI.

RESULTS

HR-DWI had a 3-fold improvement in spacial resolution compared with S-DWI as confirmed using imaging phantoms. For detecting AH, multiparametric MRI using HR-DWI had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 83.9%, and MRI using S-DWI had a sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 54.8%. The AUC for HR-DWI was significantly higher (0.794 vs. 0.631, P = 0.014). Secondary analyses of univariable predictors of AH showed tumor size increase [OR 16.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.06-69.48; P < 0.001] and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) decrease (OR 5.06; 95% CI: 1.39-18.38; P = 0.014) on HR-DWI were significant predictors of AH.

CONCLUSION

HR-DWI outperforms S-DWI in predicting AH. Patient with AH have tumors that change in size and ADC that could be detected using HR-DWI. Future studies with longer follow-up should assess HR-DWI for predicting disease progression during AS.

SIGNIFICANCE

We report on a prospective clinical trial using a MRI that has three times the resolution of standard MRI. During AS for prostate cancer, two high-resolution MRIs performed approximately a year apart can detect tumor changes that predict the presence of aggressive cancers that should be considered for curative therapy such as prostatectomy or radiation.

Role of targeted biopsy, perilesional biopsy, random biopsy, and their combination in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by mpMRI/transrectal ultrasonography fusion biopsy in confirmatory biopsy during active surveillance program

BACKGROUND

Based on the findings of different trials in biopsy naïve patients, target biopsy (TB) plus random biopsy (RB) during mpMRI-guided transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (FB) are often also adopted for the biopsy performed during active surveillance (AS) programs. At the moment, a clear consensus on the extent and modalities of the procedure is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the increase in diagnostic accuracy achieved by perilesional biopsy (PL) and different RB schemes during FB performed in AS protocol.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We collected prospectively the data of 112 consecutive patients with low- or very-low-risk prostate cancer; positive mpMRI underwent biopsy at a single academic institution in the context of an AS protocol.

INTERVENTION(S)

mpMRI/transrectal US FB with Hitachi RVS system with 3 TB and concurrent transrectal 24-core RB.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The diagnostic yield of the different possible biopsy schemes (TB only; TB + 4 perilesional (PL) cores; TB + 12-core RB; TB + 24-core RB) was compared by the McNemar test. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were adopted to identify predictors of any cancer, Gleason grade group (GGG) ≥2 cancers, and the presence of GGG≥2 cancers in the larger schemes only.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The detection rate of GGG ≥2 cancers increased to 30%, 39%, and 49% by adding 4 PL cores, 14, and 24 RB cores, respectively, to TB cores (all p values <0.01). On the whole, TB alone, 14-core RB, and 24-core-RB identified 38%, 47%, and 56% of all the GGG ≥2 cancers. Such figures increased to 62% by adding to TB 4 PL cores, and to 80% by adding 14 RB cores. Most of the differences were observed in PI-RADS 4 lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that PL biopsy increased the detection rate of GGG ≥2 cancers as compared with TB alone. However, the combination of those cores missed a large percentage of the CS cancers identified with larger RB cores, including a 20% of CS cancers diagnosed only by the combination of TB plus 24-core RB.

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.

Prostate MRI and image quality: The urologist's perspective

The development of different imaging modalities of the prostate has significantly improved tumor detection, patient risk stratification, and quality of care.Among these, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has emerged as the most sensitive tool.It is useful in the diagnosis, localization, risk stratification, and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer, PCa. As a result, mp-MRI of the prostate is recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men with suspected PCa. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer and mp-MRI plays a fundamental role in this scenario.While many aspects of image quality certainly fall within the purview of radiology, it is important to recognize that urologists must also be attentive to imaging quality when utilizing mp-MRI to facilitate PCa management. We present our viewpoint as urologists on how image quality impacts the management of men diagnosed with PCa andattempt to identify the factors that impact mp-MRI image quality, consequences of poor image quality, and finally suggestions for improvements.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A single-center experience

PURPOSE

To report the long-term oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in selected patients with favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A retrospective database review of two academic centers was conducted to identify favorable IR PCa patients initially managed by AS between 2014 and 2022. Favorable IR PCa was defined by the presence of one single element of IR disease (i.e., PSA 10-20ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group [GG] 2, or cT2b). All patients were diagnosed and followed up according to a contemporary scheme, including MRI and image-guided biopsies. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients met our inclusion criteria and the median follow-up was 56months. During follow-up, there were no cases of metastasis or death due to PCa, but 6 deaths due to competing causes. A total of 25 (44%) and 6 patients (11%) had definitive treatment and GG 3 reclassification during follow-up, respectively. In multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis, the risk of undergoing definitive treatment was significantly associated with PSA density>0.15 (HR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.47 to 15; P=0.01) and PI-RADS 4-5 lesions on mpMRI (HR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.06 to 5.19; P=0.006). Interestingly, tumor burden (P=0.3) and GG (P=0.7) on biopsy were not associated with definitive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

AS is a safe and valuable strategy for well-selected patients with favorable IR prostate cancer, with excellent oncological outcomes after five years' follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

[Early detection of prostate cancer: Towards a new paradigm?]

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a public health issue. The diagnostic strategy for PCa is well codified and assessed by digital rectal examination, PSA testing and multiparametric MRI, which may or may not lead to prostate biopsies. The formal benefit of organized PCa screening, studied more than 10 years ago at an international scale and for all incomers, is not demonstrated. However, diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have evolved since the pivotal studies. The contribution of MRI and targeted biopsies, the widespread use of active surveillance for unsignificant PCa, the improvement of surgical techniques and radiotherapy… have allowed a better selection of patients and strengthened the interest for an individualized approach, reducing the risk of overtreatment. Aiming to enhance coverage and access to screening for the population, the European Commission recently promoted the evaluation of an organized PCa screening strategy, including MRI. The lack of screening programs has become detrimental to the population and must shift towards an early detection policy adapted to the risk of each individual.

The PRECISE Recommendations for Prostate MRI in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations were published in 2016 to standardize the reporting of MRI examinations performed to assess for disease progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Although a limited number of studies have reported outcomes from use of PRECISE in clinical practice, the available studies have demonstrated PRECISE to have high pooled NPV but low pooled PPV for predicting progression. Our experience in using PRECISE in clinical practice at two teaching hospitals has highlighted issues with its application and areas requiring clarification. This Clinical Perspective critically appraises PRECISE on the basis of this experience, focusing on the system's key advantages and disadvantages and exploring potential changes to improve the system's utility. These changes include consideration of image quality when applying PRECISE scoring, incorporation of quantitative thresholds for disease progression, adoption of a PRECISE 3F sub-category for progression not qualifying as substantial, and comparisons with both the baseline and most recent prior examinations. Items requiring clarification include derivation of a patient-level score in patients with multiple lesions, intended application of PRECISE score 5 (i.e., if requiring development of disease that is no longer organ-confined), and categorization of new lesions in patients with prior MRI-invisible disease.

Baseline prostate health index risk category and risk category changes during active surveillance predict grade reclassification

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether baseline prostate health index (PHI) at the initiation of active surveillance (AS) or repeated PHI testing during AS is of clinical value after confirmatory biopsy in AS men followed with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

METHODS

We identified 382 AS patients with no greater than Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer on diagnostic and confirmatory biopsy, at least one mpMRI and PHI test, of which 241 had at least 2 PHI tests. Grade reclassification (GR) was defined as ≥GG2 on surveillance biopsy. PHI risk categories 1 to 4 were as defined by the manufacturer. Associations between baseline PHI risk category or baseline PSA density (PSAD), change in PHI risk categories over time or PSAD changes over time and GR were evaluated with multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for age, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score and number of positive cores.

RESULTS

Men with baseline PHI scores in the highest risk categories had lower rates of GR-free survival (log-rank P < 0.001), as did those who increased in PHI risk category or remained in a high PHI risk category during surveillance (log-rank P = 0.032). On multivariable regression, baseline PHI risk category was a predictor of GR (risk category 4 [vs. 1] hazard ratio [HR] 2.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-5.66, P = 0.002, model C-index 0.764, Akaike Information Criterion [AIC] 797), as were PHI risk category changes over time (risk category 4 [vs. 1] HR 4.20, 95% CI 1.76-10.05, P = 0.002, C-index 0.759, AIC 489). Separate models with baseline PSAD and PSAD changes over time yielded C-indices of 0.709 (AIC 809) and 0.733 (AIC 495) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline PHI risk category and PHI changes over time were both independent predictors of GR after confirmatory biopsy, but the added benefit over PSAD seemed modest. However, baseline PHI and PHI risk category changes provided clinically useful risk stratification for time to GR, so further evaluation of PHI's ability to help reduce the frequency of mpMRI and/or surveillance biopsies with more PHI data points over time may be warranted.

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.

Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring to Predict Clinical Outcomes in Active Surveillance for Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether radiological change on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scored using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) Scoring system predicts grade reclassification (GR) at surveillance biopsy in men on active surveillance (AS) with Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of 255 men with low-risk PCa on AS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-informed diagnostic and confirmatory biopsies and studied the subset who had surveillance biopsies (n = 163) within 6months of an interval MRI.

RESULTS

We studied 309 PRECISE scores in 255 men. 14% demonstrated radiological progression (PRECISE 4-5) on interval MRI performed within 24months, compared to 34% of those whose interval MRI was performed at a >3-year interval (P = .002). 28% (46/163) of men undergoing surveillance biopsy experienced GR to ≥ GG2 PCa. There was no significant increase in the rate of GR with increasing PRECISE score (PRECISE 1-2: 24%, PRECISE 3: 23%, PRECISE 4-5: 38%; P = .11). There was a significant increase in the rate of GR with increasing PI-RADS score (P < .05). On multivariable analysis, a PI-RADS score of 4-5 was significantly associated with GR compared to men who had a highest PI-RADS ≤3 (OR=1.98 [95% CI: 1.45-3.09, P = .01]).

CONCLUSION

In a low-risk AS cohort with limited follow-up, a patient's highest PI-RADS rather than their PRECISE score on interval MRI was predictive of GR on surveillance biopsy.

Is Active Surveillance Too Active?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Many prostate cancer active surveillance protocols mandate serial monitoring at defined intervals, including but certainly not limited to serum PSA (often every 6 months), clinic visits, prostate multiparametric MRI, and repeat prostate biopsies. The purpose of this article is to evaluate whether current protocols result in excessive testing of patients on active surveillance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have been published in the past several years evaluating the utility of multiparametric MRI, serum biomarkers, and serial prostate biopsy for men on active surveillance. While MRI and serum biomarkers have promise with risk stratification, no studies have demonstrated that periodic prostate biopsy can be safely omitted in active surveillance. Active surveillance for prostate cancer is too active for some men with seemingly low-risk cancer. The use of multiple prostate MRIs or additional biomarkers do not always add to the prediction of higher-grade disease on surveillance biopsy.

Delta radiomic patterns on serial bi-parametric MRI are associated with pathologic upgrading in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: preliminary findings

Objective

The aim of this study was to quantify radiomic changes in prostate cancer (PCa) progression on serial MRI among patients on active surveillance (AS) and evaluate their association with pathologic progression on biopsy.

Methods

This retrospective study comprised N = 121 biopsy-proven PCa patients on AS at a single institution, of whom N = 50 at baseline conformed to the inclusion criteria. ISUP Gleason Grade Groups (GGG) were obtained from 12-core TRUS-guided systematic biopsies at baseline and follow-up. A biopsy upgrade (AS+) was defined as an increase in GGG (or in number of positive cores) and no upgrade (AS-) was defined when GGG remained the same during a median period of 18 months. Of N = 50 patients at baseline, N = 30 had MRI scans available at follow-up (median interval = 18 months) and were included for delta radiomic analysis. A total of 252 radiomic features were extracted from the PCa region of interest identified by board-certified radiologists on 3T bi-parametric MRI [T2-weighted (T2W) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)]. Delta radiomic features were computed as the difference of radiomic feature between baseline and follow-up scans. The association of AS+ with age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS v2.1) score, and tumor size was evaluated at baseline and follow-up. Various prediction models were built using random forest (RF) classifier within a threefold cross-validation framework leveraging baseline radiomics (Cbr), baseline radiomics + baseline clinical (Cbrbcl), delta radiomics (CΔr), delta radiomics + baseline clinical (CΔrbcl), and delta radiomics + delta clinical (CΔrΔcl).

Results

An AUC of 0.64 ± 0.09 was obtained for Cbr, which increased to 0.70 ± 0.18 with the integration of clinical variables (Cbrbcl). CΔr yielded an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.15. Integrating delta radiomics with baseline clinical variables yielded an AUC of 0.77 ± 0.23. CΔrΔclresulted in the best AUC of 0.84 ± 0.20 (p < 0.05) among all combinations.

Conclusion

Our preliminary findings suggest that delta radiomics were more strongly associated with upgrade events compared to PIRADS and other clinical variables. Delta radiomics on serial MRI in combination with changes in clinical variables (PSA and tumor volume) between baseline and follow-up showed the strongest association with biopsy upgrade in PCa patients on AS. Further independent multi-site validation of these preliminary findings is warranted.

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.

Patient-reported functional outcomes and oncological control after primary focal cryotherapy for clinically significant prostate cancer: A Phase II mandatory biopsy-monitored study

INTRODUCTION

We report herein the impact of focal therapy (FT) on multi-domain functional outcomes in a Phase II prospective clinical trial (NCT04138914) in focal cryotherapy for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

The primary outcome was the detection of a ≥5 point deterioration in any of the four main expanded prostate index composite (EPIC) functional domains. Pretreatment multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transperineal targeted and systematic saturation biopsy were used to select patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)≤20 ng/mL, Gleason grade group (GG) ≤4, mpMRI lesion volume ≤ 3 mL (for a single lesion) or ≤1.5 mL (where two lesions were present). Focal cryotherapy was performed with a minimum 5 mm margin around each target lesion. EPIC scores were obtained at baseline and posttreatment at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mandatory repeat mpMRI and prostate biopsy were performed at 12 months to determine the infield and outfield recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were recruited. The mean age was 68 years, with PSA of 7.3 ng/mL and PSA density of 0.19 ng/mL2 . No Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications occurred. Transient worsening of EPIC urinary (mean diff 16.0, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.8-23.6) and sexual function scores (mean diff 11.0, p:0.005, 95% CI: 4.0-17.7) were observed at 1-month posttreatment, with recovery by Month 3. A subgroup who had ablation extending to the neurovascular bundle had a trend to delayed recovery of sexual function to Month 6. At 12-month repeat mpMRI and biopsy, 22 patients (78.6%) had no detectable csPCa. Of the six patients (21.4%) who had csPCa recurrences, four were GG2, one GG3, and one GG4. Four patients underwent repeat FT, one underwent radical prostatectomy, while the remaining one patient with low-volume GG2 cancer opted for active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

FT using cryotherapy was associated with a transient deterioration of urinary and sexual function with resolution at 3 months posttreatment and with reasonable early efficacy in well-selected csPCa patients.

Positive family history as a predictor for disease outcomes after radical prostatectomy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer

Background

While family history (FHx) of prostate cancer (PCa) increases the risk of PCa, comparably less is known regarding the impact of FHx on pathologic and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our multicenter database comprising 6,041 nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP. Patients with a FHx of PCa in one or more first-degree relatives were considered as FHx positive. We examined the association of FHx with pathologic outcomes and biochemical recurrence (BCR) using logistic and Cox regression models, respectively.

Results

In total, 1,677 (28%) patients reported a FHx of PCa. Compared to patients without FHx, those with, were younger at RP (median age of 59 vs. 62 years, p < 0.01), and had significantlymore favorable biopsy and RP histopathologic findings. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, positive FHx was associated with extracapsular extension (odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.90, p < 0.01; model AUC 0.73) and upgrading (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.80, p < 0.01; model AUC 0.68). Incorporating FHx significantly improved the AUC of the base model for upgrading (p < 0.01). Positive FHx was not associated with BCR in pre- and postoperative multivariable models (p = 0.1 and p = 0.7); c-indexes of Cox multivariable models were: 0.73 and 0.82, respectively.

Conclusions

We found that patients with clinically nonmetastatic PCa who have positive FHx of PCa undergo RP at a younger age and have more favorable pathologic outcomes. Nevertheless, FHx of PCa did not confer better BCR rates, suggesting that FHx leads to potentially early detection and treatment without impact on BCR.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance in active surveillance of a low-risk prostate cancer cohort from clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is considered a suitable management practice for those patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At present, however, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS protocols has not yet been clearly established.

OUTCOMES

To determine the role of mpMRI and its ability to detect significant prostate cancer (SigPCa) in PCa patients enrolled in AS protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 229 patients enrolled in an AS protocol between 2011 and 2020 at Reina Sofía University Hospital. MRI interpretation was based on PIRADS v.1 or v.2/2.1 classification. Demographics, clinical, and analytical data were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for mpMRI in different scenarios. We defined SigPCa and reclassification/progression as a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, a clinical stage ≥T2b, or an increase in PCa volume. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate progression-free survival time.

RESULTS

Median age was 69.02 (±7.73) at diagnosis, with a 0.15 (±0.08) PSA density (PSAD). Eighty-six patients were reclassified after confirmatory biopsy, with a suspicious mpMRI an indication for a clear reclassification and risk-predictor factor in disease progression (p < 0.05). During follow-up, 46 patients were changed from AS to active treatment mainly due to disease progression. Ninety patients underwent ≥2mpMRI during follow-up, with a median follow-up of 29 (15-49) months. Thirty-four patients had a baseline suspicious mpMRI (at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy): 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 and 20 patients with ≥PIRADS 4. From 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 baseline mpMRI, 29% progressed radiologically, with a 50% progression rate versus 10% (1/10 patients) for those with similar or decreased mpMRI risk. Of the 56 patients with a non-suspicious baseline mpMRI (PIRADS < 2), 14 patients (25%) had an increased degree of radiological suspicion, with a detection rate of SigPCa of 29%. The mpMRI NPV during follow-up was 0.91.

CONCLUSION

A suspicious mpMRI increases the reclassification and disease progression risk during follow-up and plays an important role in monitoring biopsies. In addition, a high NPV at mpMRI follow-up can help to decrease the need to monitor biopsies during AS.

Prospective Implementation and Early Outcomes of a Risk-stratified Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Follow-up Protocol

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a major management option for men with early prostate cancer. Current guidelines however advocate identical AS follow-up for all without considering different disease trajectories. We previously proposed a pragmatic three-tier STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) follow-up strategy based on different progression risks from clinic-pathological and imaging features.

Objective

To report early outcomes from the implementation of the STRATCANS protocol in our centre.

Design setting and participants

Men on AS were enrolled into a prospective stratified follow-up programme.

Intervention

Three tiers of increasing follow-up intensity based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1 or 2, prostate-specific antigen density, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score at entry.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Rates of progression to CPG ≥3, any pathological progression, AS attrition, and patient choice for treatment were assessed. Differences in progression were compared with chi-square statistics.

Results and limitations

Data from 156 men (median age 67.3 yr) were analysed. Of these, 38.4% had CPG2 disease and 27.5% had grade group 2 disease at diagnosis. The median time on AS was 4 yr (interquartile range 3.2-4.9) and 1.5 yr on STRATCANS. Overall, 135/156 (86.5%) men remained on AS or converted to watchful waiting and 6/156 (3.8%) stopped AS by choice by the end of the evaluation period. Of the 156 patients, 66 (42.3%) were allocated to STRATCANS 1 (least intense follow-up), 61 (39.1%) to STRATCANS 2, and 29 (18.6%) to STRATCANS 3 (highest intensity). By increasing STRATCANS tier, progression rates to CPG ≥3 and any progression events were 0% and 4.6%, 3.4% and 8.6%, and 7.4% and 22.2%, respectively (p = 0.019). Modelling resource usage suggested potential reductions in appointments by 22% and MRI by 42% compared with current NICE guideline recommendations (first 12 months of AS). The study is limited by short follow-up, a relatively small cohort, and being single centre.

Conclusions

A simple risk-tiered AS strategy is possible with early outcomes supporting stratified follow-up intensity. STRATCANS implementation could de-escalate follow-up in men at a low risk of progression while husbanding resources for those who need closer follow-up.

Patient summary

We report a practical way to personalise follow-up for men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Our method may allow reductions in the follow-up burden for men at a low risk of disease change while maintaining vigilance for those at a higher risk.

Time series radiomics for the prediction of prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance

Serial MRI is an essential assessment tool in prostate cancer (PCa) patients enrolled on active surveillance (AS). However, it has only moderate sensitivity for predicting histopathological tumour progression at follow-up, which is in part due to the subjective nature of its clinical reporting and variation among centres and readers. In this study, we used a long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN) to develop a time series radiomics (TSR) predictive model that analysed longitudinal changes in tumour-derived radiomic features across 297 scans from 76 AS patients, 28 with histopathological PCa progression and 48 with stable disease. Using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), we found that an LSTM-based model combining TSR and serial PSA density (AUC 0.86 [95% CI: 0.78-0.94]) significantly outperformed a model combining conventional delta-radiomics and delta-PSA density (0.75 [0.64-0.87]; p = 0.048) and achieved comparable performance to expert-performed serial MRI analysis using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system (0.84 [0.76-0.93]; p = 0.710). The proposed TSR framework, therefore, offers a feasible quantitative tool for standardising serial MRI assessment in PCa AS. It also presents a novel methodological approach to serial image analysis that can be used to support clinical decision-making in multiple scenarios, from continuous disease monitoring to treatment response evaluation. KEY POINTS: •LSTM RNN can be used to predict the outcome of PCa AS using time series changes in tumour-derived radiomic features and PSA density. •Using all available TSR features and serial PSA density yields a significantly better predictive performance compared to using just two time points within the delta-radiomics framework. •The concept of TSR can be applied to other clinical scenarios involving serial imaging, setting out a new field in AI-driven radiology research.

A Review of Modern Imaging Landscape for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Clinical Guide

The development of prostate cancer imaging is rapidly evolving, with many changes to the way patients are diagnosed, staged, and monitored for recurrence following treatment. New developments, including the potential role of imaging in screening and the combined diagnostic and therapeutic applications in the field of theranostics, are underway. In this paper, we aim to outline the current landscape in prostate cancer imaging and look to the future at the potential modalities and applications to come.

Interaction of MRI and active surveillance in prostate cancer: Time to re-evaluate the active surveillance inclusion criteria

Currently available data from long-running single- and multi-center active surveillance (AS) studies show that AS has excellent cancer-specific survival rates. For AS to be effective the 'right' patients should be selected for which up until 5-to-10 years ago systematic prostate biopsies were used. Because the systematic prostate strategy relies on sampling efficiency for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), it is subject to sampling error. Due to this sampling error, many of the Gleason 3+3 PCas that were included on AS in the early days and were classified as low-risk, may in fact have had a higher Gleason score. Subsequently, AS-criteria were more strict to overcome or limit the number of men missing the potential window of curability in case their tumor would be reclassified. Five to ten years ago the prostate biopsy landscape changed drastically by the addition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, which has by now trickled down into the EAU guidelines. At the moment, the EAU guidelines recommend performing a (multi-parametric) MRI before prostate biopsy and combine systematic and targeted prostate biopsy when the MRI is positive (i.e. PIRADS ≥3). So because of the introduction of the MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway, literature is showing that more Gleason 3+4 PCas are being diagnosed. But can it not be that the inclusion of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway causes risk inflation, resulting in men earlier eligible for AS, now being labelled ineligible for AS? Would it not be possible to include these current Gleason 3+4 PCas on AS? The authors hypothesize that the improved accuracy that comes with the introduction of MRI into the diagnostic PCa-care pathway permits to widen both the AS-inclusion and follow-up criteria. Maintaining our inclusion criteria for AS from the systematic biopsy era will unnecessarily and undesirably expose patients to the increased risk of overtreatment. The evidence behind the addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to systematic biopsies calls upon the re-evaluation of the AS inclusion criteria and research from one-size-fits-all protocols used so far, into the direction of more dynamic and individual risk-based AS-approaches.

Prostate cancer risk, screening and management in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations

Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour suppressor genes are associated with prostate cancer risk; however, optimal screening protocols for individuals with these mutations have been a subject of debate. Several prospective studies of prostate cancer incidence and screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have indicated at least a twofold to fourfold increase in prostate cancer risk among carriers of BRCA2 mutations compared with the general population. Moreover, BRCA2 mutations are associated with more aggressive, high-grade disease characteristics at diagnosis, more aggressive clinical behaviour and greater prostate cancer-specific mortality. The risk for BRCA1 mutations seems to be attenuated compared with BRCA2. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement or prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone is an imperfect indicator of clinically significant prostate cancer; therefore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers might benefit from refined risk stratification strategies. However, the long-term impact of prostate cancer screening is unknown, and the optimal management of BRCA1/2 carriers with prostate cancer has not been defined. Whether timely localized therapy can improve overall survival in the screened population is uncertain. Long-term results of prospective studies are awaited to confirm the optimal screening strategies and benefits of prostate cancer screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and whether these approaches ultimately have a positive impact on survival and quality of life in these patients.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.