Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?

Frozen section utilization to omit systematic biopsy in diagnosing high risk prostate cancer

The current guidelines for targeted prostate biopsy recommend an additional systematic biopsy regardless of clinical risk assessment. To evaluate frozen section biopsy utilization in targeted prostate biopsy to omit systematic biopsies in cases of positive frozen section results of patients with clinical features suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer. In this prospective, single-center study, we enrolled patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with clinical evidence suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer (either an extracapsular extension or prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/ml). All patients underwent 2–4 core targeted biopsies utilizing frozen section biopsy with immediate results, allowing patients with a positive result to omit a systematic biopsy. In case of a negative result, additional systematic biopsies were performed. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of targeted biopsy. Patient demographics, clinical variables were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 63 patients were diagnosed with cancer without the need for an additional systematic biopsy. Three patients were non-diagnostic with target biopsy alone. Hence an additional systematic biopsy was performed. Two of these patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer and one tested negative for cancer. In this report we looked into the necessity of taking a routine systematic biopsy in patients with high risk features of prostate cancer. We found that utilizing frozen section biopsy for targeted biopsy reduces unneccessary systematic biopsy in 97% of cases and still provides a means for systematic biopsy when targeted biopsy alone fails to make the diagnosis.

Enzalutamide Monotherapy vs Active Surveillance in Patients With Low-risk or Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: The ENACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021.

Interventions

Randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety.

Results

A total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.

The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer management, preserving oncological and functional outcomes. However, active monitoring using relevant parameters in addition to the usual clinical, biological and pathological considerations is necessary to compensate for initial undergrading of the tumour or to detect early progression without missing the opportunity to provide curative therapy. Indeed, several studies have raised concerns about inadequate biopsy sampling at diagnosis. However, the implementation of baseline MRI and targeted biopsy have led to improved initial stratification of low-risk disease; baseline MRI correlates well with disease characteristics and AS outcomes. The use of follow-up MRI during the surveillance phase also raises the question of the requirement for serial biopsies in the absence of radiological progression and the possibility of using completely MRI-based surveillance, with triggers for biopsies based solely on MRI findings. This concept of a tailored-risk, imaging-based monitoring strategy is aimed at reducing invasive procedures. However, the abandonment of serial biopsies in the absence of MRI progression can probably not yet be recommended in routine practice, as the data from real-life cohorts are heterogeneous and inconclusive. Thus, the evolution towards a routine, fully MRI-guided AS pathway has to be preceded by ensuring quality programme assessment for MRI reading and by demonstrating its safety in prospective trials.

Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background:

Our goal is to review current literature regarding the role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa) and identify trends in rate of reclassification of risk category, performance of fusion biopsy (FB) versus systematic biopsy (SB), and progression-free survival.

Methods:

We performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and identified 121 articles. A narrative summary was performed.

Results:

Thirty-two articles were chosen to be featured in this review. SB and FB are complementary in detecting higher-grade disease in follow-up. While FB was more likely than SB to detect clinically significant disease, FB missed 6.4–11% of clinically significant disease. Imaging factors that predicted upgrading include number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lesion density, and MRI suspicion level.

Conclusion:

Incorporating mpMRI FB in conjunction with SB should be part of contemporary AS protocols. mpMRI should additionally be used routinely for follow-up; however, mpMRI is not currently sensitive enough in detecting disease progression to replace biopsy in the surveillance protocol.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to avoid overtreatment of prostate cancer (PCa) and has become the standard of care for low-risk patients. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in AS has expanded due to its ability to risk stratify patients with suspected or known PCa, and MRI has become an integral part of the AS protocols at various institutions. A negative pre-biopsy MRI result is associated with a very high negative predictive value for a Gleason score ≥ 3+4. A positive MRI result in men who are otherwise eligible for AS has been shown to be associated with the presence of high-grade PCa and therefore with ineligibility. In addition, MRI can be used to guide and determine the timing of per-protocol biopsy during AS. However, there are several MRI-related issues that remain unresolved, including the lack of a consensus and guidelines; concerns about gadolinium deposition in various tissues; and increased demand for higher efficiency and productivity. Similarly, the need for the combined use of targeted and systematic sampling is still a matter of debate when lesions are visible on MRI. Here, we review the current AS guidelines, as well as the accepted roles of MRI in patient selection and monitoring, the potential uses of MRI that are still in question, and the limitations of the method.

Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance

Early identification and management of prostate cancer completely changed with the discovery of prostate-specific antigen. However, improved detection has also led to overdiagnosis and consequently overtreatment of patients with low-risk disease. Strategies for the management of patients using active surveillance - the monitoring of clinically insignificant disease until intervention is warranted - were developed in response to this issue. The success of this approach is critically dependent on the accurate selection of patients who are predicted to be at the lowest risk of prostate cancer mortality. The Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer were first published in 1994 and have been repeatedly validated for risk-stratification and selection for active surveillance over the past few decades. Current active surveillance programmes use modified criteria with 30-50% of patients receiving treatment at 10 years. Nonetheless, tools for prostate cancer diagnosis have continued to evolve with improvements in biopsy format and targeting, advances in imaging technologies such as multiparametric MRI, and the identification of serum-, tissue- and urine-based biomarkers. These advances have the potential to further improve the identification of men with low-risk disease who can be appropriately managed using active surveillance.

Histological findings of totally embedded robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) specimens in 1197 men with a negative (low risk) preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prostate lobe and clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become a popular initial investigation of an elevated PSA and is being incorporated into active surveillance protocols. Decisions on prostate cancer investigation and management based solely on a normal mpMRI remains controversial. Histopathological findings of a totally embedded normal mpMRI lobe are rarely described.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the histological findings of negative preoperative mpMRI lobes in men treated by robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Inclusion criteria included a preoperative low risk mpMRI for both lobes (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) ≤ 2) or one negative lobe (with a PIRADS 3-5 in the opposite lobe).

RESULTS

A single normal mpMRI lobe was identified in 1018 men (PIRADS 3-5 group). Both lobes were normal in 179 men (PIRADS ≤ 2 group). Prostate cancer was identified in 47.6% (485/1018) of the normal mpMRI lobe opposite a PIRADS 3-5 lesion, including 13.2% (134/1018) with >0.5 cc of International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) grade 2, or a higher grade cancer. ISUP grade 4-5 was only identified in 2% (20/1018). Compared to RALP histology of the PIRADS 3-5 mpMRI tumour, a pathological ISUP upgrade in the normal mpMRI lobe was identified in 58/1018 men (5.7%). In the PIRADS ≤ 2 group extraprostatic extension occurred in 19% (34/179) and seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) in 3.9% (7/179). There was no difference in margin status between the PIRADS 3-5 and ≤2 groups (p = 0.247).

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI underestimates tumour grade and volume compared to totally embedded histopathological analysis of RALP specimens, although ISUP grade 4-5 cancer is uncommon. Our analysis provides useful insight into the multifocality of prostate cancers, and highlights the utility of systematic biopsy, in addition to targeted biopsies. These results have ramifications for clinical decisions on prostate cancer management based solely on the mpMRI appearance, including active surveillance.

In-Bore MRI-guided Prostate Biopsies in Patients with Prior Positive Transrectal US-guided Biopsy Results: Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Missed Cancers

Purpose

To evaluate the role of confirmatory in-bore MRI-guided biopsy in patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease diagnosed at prior transrectal US-guided biopsy and to evaluate the rate and predictors for missed cancers.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive men who had previously undergone transrectal US-guided biopsy with positive results and who underwent subsequent in-bore MRI-guided biopsy at our university hospital (average time interval, 11 months) between 2012 and 2016 was performed. Ten men were excluded because of a history of treatment after transrectal US-guided biopsy. A total of 40 men (mean age, 63 years; range, 47-84 years) were included in this study. Multiparametric 3-T MRI (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced) and transrectal in-bore MRI-guided biopsy were performed. Cancer detection, disease-grade changes, and cancers missed at in-bore MRI-guided biopsy were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to report different rates. The Fisher exact test was used for categoric variables. The Mann-Whitney U test and independent Student t test were used for nonparametric and parametric data, respectively. The McNemar test was used for paired data.

Results

The overall cancer detection rate when using in-bore MRI-guided biopsy was 65% (26 of 40). In-bore MRI-guided biopsy detected 14 previously undiscovered cancerous lesions (clinically significant cancers [CSCs], 57.1% [eight of 14]). An overall disease upgrade by in-bore MRI-guided biopsy occurred in 40% (16 of 40) of cases (61.5% [16 of 26] of cases with positive results from in-bore MRI-guided biopsy). One case was downgraded from a Gleason score (GS) of 3 + 4 = 7 to a GS of 3 + 3 = 6. Out of 71 sextant biopsies with positive results detected by transrectal US-guided biopsy (from all 40 patients), 80% (57 of 71) were visible on MR images (in-bore MRI-guided biopsy results were positive in 52.6% [30 of 57]), and 20% (14 of 71) had no image correlates on MR images. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy upgraded 60% (18 of 30) and downgraded 3.3% (one of 30) of detected lesions. The false-negative rate was 35% (14.2% [two of 14] of patients had CSCs; GS ≥ 7), was higher in prostate volumes of greater than 40 mL, and was lower in the anterior gland location (P = .04 and .01, respectively).

Conclusion

Performing confirmatory in-bore MRI-guided biopsy following positive transrectal US-guided biopsy resulted in a high disease-upgrade incidence with subsequently improved disease-risk stratification, particularly when considering patients for active surveillance or focal therapy. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Weiss and Solomon in this issue.

MRI/TRUS fusion vs. systematic biopsy: intra-patient comparison of diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion (MRI/TRUS fusion) biopsy versus systematic biopsy and its association with PI-RADS v2 categories in patients with suspected prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

122 patients undergoing both MRI/TRUS fusion and systematic biopsy, with suspicion of prostate cancer, with suspicious findings on MRI based on PI-RADS v2, were included between April 2016 and March 2017. Comparison of tumor detection rates using each technique and combined techniques was performed for all lesions as well as those that are traditionally difficult to access (i.e., anterior lesions).

RESULTS

Prostate cancer was detected in 83/122 patients (68%) with 74.6% clinically significant lesions (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater). There was a statistically significant difference in presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS v2 categories of 3, 4, and 5 (20%, 52% and 77%, respectively, p < 0.001). Fusion biopsy was positive in a significantly higher percentage of patients versus systematic biopsy (56% versus 48%, respectively, p < 0.05). The fusion biopsy alone was positive in 20%. Of 34 patients with anterior lesions on MRI, 44% were detected only by fusion biopsy, with a joint yield of 71%. In patients with previous negative systematic biopsies, 48.7% lesions were found by fusion biopsy with 20.5% being exclusively positive by this method. The percentage of positive cores for fusion biopsies was significantly higher than for systematic biopsies (26% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly improves the detection rate of prostate cancer versus systematic biopsy, particularly for anterior lesions.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

PURPOSE

We investigated the ability of prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer in a standardized, multi-institutional active surveillance cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated men enrolled in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Gleason Grade Group less than 2 and who underwent biopsy within 12 months of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Our primary outcome was biopsy reclassification to Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS® score and clinical factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit with magnetic resonance imaging and clinical factors and used to perform receiver operating curve analyses.

RESULTS

There were 361 participants with 395 prostate magnetic resonance imaging studies with a median followup of 4.1 (IQR 2.0-7.6) years. Overall 108 (27%) biopsies showed reclassification. Defining positive magnetic resonance imaging as PI-RADS 3-5, the negative predictive value and positive predictive value for detecting Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer was 83% (95% CI 76-90) and 31% (95% CI 26-37), respectively. PI-RADS was significantly associated with reclassification (PI-RADS 5 vs 1 and 2 OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.21-6.17, p=0.016) in a multivariable model but did not improve upon a model with only clinical factors (AUC 0.768 vs 0.762). In 194 fusion biopsies higher grade cancer was found in targeted cores in 21 (11%) instances, while 25 (13%) had higher grade cancer in the systematic cores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds the largest cohort data to the body of literature for magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance, recommending systematic biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and the inclusion of systematic biopsy in patients with positive magnetic resonance imaging.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy during active surveillance: A single-centre study

Objective

To analyse the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) ultrasound (US)-guided fusion biopsy (FB) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) under active surveillance (AS).

Patients and methods

Our retrospective study included 47 patients under AS who consecutively underwent both FB and standard biopsy (SB), from May 2015 until November 2017. We defined FB as a transrectal US-guided biopsy based on mpMRI. The primary endpoint was to assess the rate of concordance between FB and SB in terms of diagnostic yield, as well as the rate of Gleason Score upgrading/downgrading between the two techniques. Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) was applied to test the concordance between FB and SB.

Results

The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 20 (13–37) months. The median (IQR) number of cores taken was 13 (12–14) at SB and 4 (4–6) at FB. Overall, FB missed 12/47 (26%) PCa diagnoses compared to SB. There was concordance between SB and FB in 64% of the patients. The κ showed a perfect agreement between SB and FB for the detection of PCa with Gleason Score 4 + 4 and a weak concordance for negative biopsies (κ: 0.46) and for PCa with a Gleason Score 4 + 3 (κ: 0.54). There was Gleason Score upgrading at FB in two of 47 (4%) patients, whereas there was downgrading in three of 47 (6%) patients.

Conclusion

In our present study, FB showed no superiority over SB for the detection of PCa. On the contrary, FB had a high rate of missed PCa compared to SB. Further studies are required to ascertain the role of FB in AS.

Abbreviations

AS: active surveillance; FB: fusion biopsy; IL: index lesion; IQR: interquartile range; mpMRI: multiparametric MRI; (cs)PCa: (clinically significant) prostate cancer; PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; PRIAS: Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance; ROI: region of interest; SB: standard biopsy

Quality of life in active surveillance for early prostate cancer

Recently, the prevalence of the prostate-specific antigen screening test for early-stage prostate cancer has increased, but this has also resulted in an increase in insignificant cancers. The treatment outcome of early-stage prostate cancer is excellent, but such a radical treatment also leaves the patient with undesired adverse consequences. To resolve such problems, attention should be paid to active surveillance as a modern treatment option. This study aimed to systematically review the literature about quality of life in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance. Evidence was acquired from PubMed databases in March 2019 using quality of life, prostate cancer, well-being, anxiety, depression, stress, outcomes, active surveillance, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy as keywords. Five clinical active surveillance studies measured health-related quality of life and related psychological factors, and seven compared active surveillance with other treatments (radical therapy and hormone therapy). Active surveillance was superior to radical therapy for urinary and sexual function. Furthermore, most patients who opted for active surveillance showed lower anxiety and fear of progression, whereas health-related quality of life was maintained. Although active surveillance has the advantage of being non-invasive, its diagnosis and follow-up protocols are unreliable. Because such uncertainty can affect patients' quality of life, utilization of imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, and the development of new biomarkers are required.

Impact of MRI and Targeted Biopsies on Eligibility and Disease Reclassification in MRI-positive Candidates for Active Surveillance on Systematic Biopsies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of concomitant targeted biopsies (TB) for predicting final disease reclassification in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance (AS) on systematic biopsies (SB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From a prospective database, we included all prebiopsy MRI-positive men fulfilling AS criteria at diagnosis (Toronto [n = 114], UCSF [n = 82], or PRIAS [n = 60] criteria) on SB. All patients underwent a combination of SB and software-based fusion TB, and an immediate radical prostatectomy. The primary endpoints were the pathologic upgrading and upstaging rates.

RESULTS

Biopsy grade group was upgraded to grade group (GG) 2 and to GG≥3 on TB in 65.9%-76.7% and in 12.2-16.7%, respectively. The rate of GG ≥3 in radical prostatectomy specimens varied from 31.6% to 43.3% with no relation between strictest criteria and lower upgrading rates. The proportion of not organ-confined disease (35%-39%) was comparable among the AS cohorts. Negative TB was strongly associated with the absence of final GG ≥3. Tumor grade on TB was significantly correlated with the risk of final GG ≥3 in both Toronto and UCSF cohorts, not in the PRIAS cohort. In the PRIAS cohort, the only independent predictive factor for GG ≥3 disease was the maximal tumor length in any core (P = .034).

CONCLUSION

In MRI-positive patients, the risk of disease reclassification was comparable whatever the SB-based AS criteria used. TB were predictive of final upgrading, with a varied impact according to the AS criteria. SB features remained relevant for reclassification prediction even in case of positive TB. The risk of upstaged disease remains important, approximately one third, and neither TB/SB parameters nor MRI findings could accurately predict it.

Decreased accuracy of the prostate cancer EAU risk group classification in the era of imaging-guided diagnostic pathway: proposal for a new classification based on MRI-targeted biopsies and early oncologic outcomes after surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of EAU risk classification in PCa patients according to the biopsy pathway (standard versus MRI guided) and to develop a new, more accurate, targeted biopsy (TB)-based classification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 1345 patients consecutively operated by radical prostatectomy (RP) since 2014, when MRI and TB were introduced in the diagnostic pathway. Patients underwent systematic biopsy (SB) only (n = 819) or SB and TB (n = 526) prior to RP during the same time period. Pathological and biochemical outcomes were compared between PCa men undergoing SB (SB cohort) and a combination of TB and SB (TB cohort). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to assess biochemical recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were comparable regarding final pathology and RFS (p = 0.538). The EAU risk classification accurately predicted outcomes in SB cohort, but did not significantly separate low from intermediate risk in TB cohort (p = 0.791). In TB cohort, the new proposed three-group risk classification significantly improved the recurrence risk prediction compared with the EAU risk classification: HR 4 (versus HR 1.2, p = 0.009) for intermediate, and HR 15 (versus HR 6.5, p < 0.001) in high-risk groups, respectively. A fourth group defining very high-risk cases (≥ T2c clinical stage or grade group 5) was also proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

The new classification integrating TB findings we propose meaningfully improves the recurrence prediction after surgery in patients undergoing a TB-based diagnostic pathway, compared with standard EAU risk classification which is still relevant for patients undergoing only SB. External validation is needed.

The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies

Management of prostate cancer relies heavily on accurate risk stratification obtained through biopsies, which are conventionally performed under transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guidance. Yet, multiparametric MRI has grown to become an integral part of the care of males with known or suspected prostate cancer. This article will discuss in detail the different MRI-targeted biopsy techniques, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact they have on patient management.

Performance of systematic, MRI-targeted biopsies alone or in combination for the prediction of unfavourable disease in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

PURPOSE

To assess the upstaging/upgrading rates of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) according to the biopsy scheme used (systematic (SB), targeted biopsies (TB), or both) in the setting of positive pre-biopsy MRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 143 consecutive men fulfilling the Toronto University active surveillance (AS) criteria who underwent a pre-biopsy positive MRI, a combination of SB and software-based fusion TB, and a radical prostatectomy, in two expert centres. The primary endpoints were the pathological upgrading and upstaging rates. Overall unfavourable disease (OUD) was defined by any pT3-4 and/or pN1 and/or ≥ GG 3.

RESULTS

Using TB alone would have missed 21.7% of cancers including 16.7% of ≥ GG 3. The use of TB was significantly associated with a lower risk of ≥ Grade Group (GG) 3 disease (p < 0.006) in RP specimens. Combination of SB and TB lowered this risk by 39%, compared with TB alone. The biopsy scheme did not affect the upstaging rates which were substantial even in case of combination scheme (from 37 to 46%). OUD was detected in approximately 50% of cases. The presence of high grade on TB was the only independent predictive factor for both ≥ GG 2 (p = 0.015) and ≥ GG 3 (p = 0.023) in RP specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

High grade on TB biopsies represented the major predictor of upgrading. Combination of SB and TB better defined the sub-group of patients having the lowest risk of reclassification, compared with TB or SB alone. The risk of non-organ-confined disease remained high, and could not be accurately predicted by MRI or systematic/targeted biopsy features.

The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer

Background

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) became recognised in investigating those with suspected prostate cancer between 2010 and 2012; in the USA, the preventative task force moratorium on PSA screening was a strong catalyst. In a few short years, it has been adopted into daily urological and oncological practice. The pace of clinical uptake, born along by countless papers proclaiming high accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, has sparked much debate about the timing of mpMRI within the traditional biopsy-driven clinical pathways. There are strongly held opposing views on using mpMRI as a triage test regarding the need for biopsy and/or guiding the biopsy pattern.

Objective

To review the evidence base and present a position paper on the role of mpMRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Methods

A subgroup of experts from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group conducted literature review and face to face and electronic exchanges to draw up a position statement.

Results

This paper considers diagnostic strategies for clinically significant prostate cancer; current national and international guidance; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI in detection of clinically significant and clinically insignificant neoplasms; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI on biopsy strategies and targeting; the notion of mpMRI within a wider risk evaluation on a patient by patient basis; the problems that beset mpMRI including inter-observer variability.

Conclusions

The paper concludes with a set of suggestions for using mpMRI to influence who to biopsy and who not to biopsy at diagnosis.

Key Points

• Adopt mpMRI as the first, and primary, investigation in the workup of men with suspected prostate cancer.

• PI-RADS assessment categories 1 and 2 have a high negative predictive value in excluding significant disease, and systematic biopsy may be postponed, especially in men with low-risk of disease following additional risk stratification.

• PI-RADS assessment category lesions 4 and 5 should be targeted; PI-RADS assessment category lesion 3 may be biopsied as a target, as part of systematic biopsies or may be observed depending on risk stratification.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer at 3-T Multiparametric MRI Using PI-RADS Segmentation

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine the overall and sector-based performance of 3-T multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and localization by using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring and segmentation compared with whole-mount histopathologic analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Multiparametric 3-T MRI examinations of 415 consecutive men were compared with thin-section whole-mount histopathologic analysis. A genitourinary radiologist and pathologist collectively determined concordance. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADSv2 categories and sectoral location to all detected foci by consensus. Tumor detection rates were calculated for clinical and pathologic (Gleason score) variables. Both rigid and adjusted sector-matching models were used to account for fixation-related issues. RESULTS. The 415 patients had 863 PCa foci (52.7% had a Gleason score ≥ 7, 61.9% were ≥ 1 cm, and 90.4% (375/415) of index lesions were ≥ 1 cm) and 16,185 prostate sectors. Multiparametric MRI enabled greater detection of PCa lesions 1 cm or larger (all lesions vs index lesions, 61.6% vs 81.6%), lesions with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 (all lesions vs index lesions, 71.4% vs 80.9%), and index lesions with both Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 and size 1 cm or larger (83.3%). Higher sensitivity was obtained for adjusted versus rigid tumor localization for all lesions (56.0% vs 28.5%), index lesions (55.4% vs 34.3%), lesions with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 (55.7% vs 36.0%), and index lesions 1 cm or larger (56.1% vs 35.0%). Multiparametric 3-T MRI had similarly high specificity (96.0-97.9%) for overall and index tumor localization with adjusted and rigid sector-matching approaches. CONCLUSION. Using 3-T multiparametric MRI and PI-RADSv2, we achieved the highest sensitivity (83.3%) for the detection of lesions 1 cm or larger with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7. Sectoral localization of PCa within the prostate was moderate and was better with an adjusted model than with a rigid model.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification

OBJECTIVES

To quantify Gleason score (GS) heterogeneity within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsies and to determine impact on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification.

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed on men who underwent Artemis (MRI-transrectal-ultrasound fusion) targeted biopsy (TB) for suspected prostate cancer between 2012 and 2015. Intratarget heterogeneity was defined as a difference in GS between 2 cores within a single target in patients with ≥2 positive cores. Prostate specific antigen, maximum tumor diameter, apparent diffusion coefficient, MRI suspicion score, prostate volume, systematic biopsy (SB) GS, and T-stage were analyzed for correlation with heterogeneity. Changes in NCCN risk based on high versus low GS on TB, SB alone, and SB+TB were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients underwent TB of 73 suspected lesions. Seventy percent (51/73) had ≥2 positive cores, thus meeting inclusion criteria for heterogeneity analysis. Fifty-five percent (28/51) of qualifying targets showed GS heterogeneity. None of the evaluated factors showed a significant relationship with heterogeneity. NCCN low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 30%, 49%, and 21%, respectively, with SB alone. Adding low GS TB to SB resulted in 17%, 55%, 28% in each risk group, while using high GS+SB resulted in 4%, 54%, and 42%. Overall, the addition of TB resulted in higher NCCN risk groups in 38% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of multiparametric MRI-defined targets demonstrated GS heterogeneity. The addition of high GS from TB leads to risk inflation compared with using SB alone. Further research is needed on how to integrate these findings into current risk stratification models and clinical practice.

Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Contemporary selection criteria for men with prostate cancer (PC) suitable for active surveillance (AS) are unsatisfactory, leading to high disqualification rates based on tumor misclassification. Conventional biopsy protocols are based on standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/TRUS fusion biopsy over 4-yr follow-up in men on AS for low-risk PC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between 2010 and 2018, a total of 273 men were included. Of them, 157 men with initial 12-core TRUS biopsy and 116 with initial MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy were followed by systematic and targeted transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies based on Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance criteria. MRI from follow-up MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy was assessed using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

AS-disqualification rates for patients on AS initially diagnosed by either 12-core TRUS biopsy or by MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, and regression analyses. We also analyzed the influence of negative primary MRI and PRECISE scoring to predict AS disqualification using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of men diagnosed by 12-core TRUS biopsy, 59% were disqualified from AS based on the results of subsequent MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. In the initial MRI fusion biopsy cohort, upgrading occurred significantly less frequently (19%, p<0.001). ROC curve analyses demonstrated good discrimination for the PRECISE score with an area under the curve of 0.83. No men with a PRECISE score of 1 or 2 (demonstrating absence or downgrading of lesions in follow-up MRI) were disqualified from AS. In our cohort, a negative baseline MRI scan was not a predictor of nondisqualification from AS. Limitations include transperineal approach and extended systematic biopsies used with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy, which may not be representative of other centers.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies allow a reliable risk classification for patients who are candidates for AS. The application of the PRECISE scoring system demonstrated good discrimination.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we investigated the value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsies for the assessment of active surveillance (AS) reliability using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation criteria. Standard TRUS biopsies lead to significant underestimation of prostate cancer. In contrast, MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies allowed for a more reliable risk classification. For appropriate inclusion into AS, men should receive either an initial or a confirmatory MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy.

Multiparametric MRI fusion-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive patients: Preliminary results from 80 patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the early results of transrectal prostate biopsies performed under the guidance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in biopsy naive patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Biopsy naive patients who had prostate-specific antigen level 4-10 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings and provided informed consent were examined using mpMRI. The study included 80 patients with an MRI-defined lesion with a Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score of ≥3. All mpMRIs were reported by the same uro-radiologist according to PIRADS version 2. An MRI-targeted biopsy was performed by an ultrasonography system with rigid fusion registration software. The first two to five core biopsies per MRI-defined lesions were obtained, and then a standard random 12-core biopsy was performed. Transrectal biopsies were performed under local anesthesia or sedoanalgesia.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients, 29 (36.3%) were found to have cancer using the conventional 12-core biopsy, but only 20 (25%) were found to have prostate cancer using the MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Combining the two biopsy methods (conventional+MRI-targeted), cancer detection rate increased to 43.8% (35/80 patients). The cancer detection rate using the combined method was statistically higher than that using the conventional biopsy method (p=0.03). Using the conventional biopsy method, 960 core biopsies were collected from 80 patients. Of the 960 core biopsies, 111 (11.6%) were found to be cancer. Further, 101 suspected lesions were detected using mpMRI in 80 patients. In addition, 397 core biopsies were obtained from these lesions. Of the 397 core biopsies, 62 (15.6%) were reported as prostate cancer. The core positivity rate of MR-targeted biopsy was statistically higher than that of conventional biopsy (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy combined with conventional biopsy suggested that the combined biopsy method was crucial in prostate cancer diagnosis especially in patients with prostate cancer suspicion and no biopsy history. However, larger sample prospective studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of MRI-targeted biopsy and combined biopsy methods.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess early outcomes since the introduction of an active surveillance (AS) protocol incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided baseline biopsies and image-based surveillance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A new AS protocol mandating image-guided baseline biopsies, annual mpMRI and 3-monthly prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, but which retained protocol re-biopsies, was tested. Pathological progression, treatment conversion and triggers for non-protocol biopsy were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Data from 157 men enrolled in the AS protocol (median age 64 years, PSA 6.8 ng/mL, follow-up 39 months) were interrogated. A total of 12 men (7.6%) left the AS programme by choice. Of the 145 men who remained, 104 had re-biopsies either triggered by a rise in PSA level, change in mpMRI findings or by protocol. Overall, 23 men (15.9%) experienced disease progression; pathological changes were observed in 20 men and changes in imaging results were observed in three men. Of these 23 men, 17 switched to treatment, giving a conversion rate of 11.7% (<4% per year). Of the 20 men with pathological progression, this was detected in four of them after a PSA increase triggered a re-biopsy, while in 10 men progression was detected after an mpMRI change. Progression was detected in six men, however, solely after a protocol re-biopsy without prior PSA or mpMRI changes. Using PSA and mpMRI changes alone to detect progression was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 70.0% and 81.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our AS protocol, with thorough baseline assessment and imaging-based surveillance, showed low rates of progression and treatment conversion. Changes in mpMRI findings were the principle trigger for detecting progression by imaging alone or pathologically; however, per protocol re-biopsy still detected a significant number of pathological progressions without mpMRI or PSA changes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes

The primary goal of active surveillance (AS) is to prevent overtreatment by selecting patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and closely monitoring them so that definitive treatment can be offered when needed. With the increasing popularity of AS as a management strategy for men with localized PCa, it is important to understand all the contemporary guidelines and criteria that exist for AS and the differences among them. No single optimal management strategy for clinically localized, early-stage disease has been universally accepted. The implementation of AS varies widely between institutions, from inclusion criteria to follow-up protocols, with the most notable differences seen in maximum accepted Gleason score, T-stage and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) parameters. The objectives of this review were to systematically summarize the current literature on AS strategy, present an overview of the various published guidelines and criteria that are used for AS at several major institutions as well as discuss goals and trade-offs of the various criteria. A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1990 to 2017 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS criteria and trends. Trends in AS uptake and use in Canada, USA and Europe were reviewed to demonstrate the current trends and outcomes of AS to offer greater insight into the differences, nature and efficacy of various AS protocols. AS is a compelling antidote to the current PCa overtreatment phenomena; however, when considering patients for AS it is important to understand the differences between protocols, and review published results to appreciate the impact on follow-up.

MR-guided biopsy and focal therapy: new options for prostate cancer management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Options for prostate cancer management are rapidly expanding. The recent advent of MRI technology has led to guided prostate biopsies by radiologists working in-bore or by urologists using MR/US fusion technology. The resulting tumor visualization now provides the option of focal therapy. Currently available are highly directed energies - focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, and laser - all offering the hope of curing prostate cancer with few side effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

MRI now enables visualization of many prostate cancers. MR/US fusion biopsy makes possible the targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions efficiently in the urology clinic. Several fusion devices are now commercially available. Focal therapy, a derivative of targeted biopsy, is reshaping the approach to treatment of some prostate cancers. Focal laser ablation, originally done in the MRI gantry (in-bore), promises to soon become feasible in a clinic setting (out-of-bore) under local anesthesia. Other focal therapy options, including HIFU and cryotherapy, are currently available. Herein are summarized outcomes data on focal therapy modalities.

SUMMARY

MRI-guided biopsy is optimizing prostate cancer diagnosis. Focal therapy, an outgrowth of guided biopsy, promises to become a well tolerated and effective approach to treating many men with prostate cancer while minimizing the risks of incontinence and impotence from radical treatment.

The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Compared with standard systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies (SBx), targeted biopsies (TBx) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/TRUS fusion could increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa-s) and reduce non-significant PCa (PCa-ns). This study aimed to compare the performance of the two approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-center study was conducted on all consecutive patients with PCa suspicion who underwent prebiopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). All patients underwent mpMRI/TRUS fusion TBx (two to four cores/target) using UroStation™ (Koelis, Grenoble, France) and SBx (10-12 cores) during the same session. PCa-s was defined as a maximal positive core length ≥4 mm or Gleason score ≥7.

RESULTS

The study included 191 patients (at least one suspicious lesion: PI-RADS ≥3). PCa was detected in 55.5% (106/191) of the cases. The overall PCa detection rate and the PCa-s detection rate were not significantly higher in TBx alone versus SBx (44.5% vs 46.1%, p = .7, and 38.2% vs 33.5%, p = .2, respectively). Combined TBx and SBx diagnosed significantly more PCa-s than SBx alone (45% vs 33.5%, p = .02). PCa-s was detected only by TBx in 12% of cases (23/191) and only by SBx in 7.3% (14/191). Gleason score was upgraded by TBx in 16.8% (32/191) and by SBx in 13.6% (26/191) of patients (p = .4).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of TBx and SBx achieved the best results for the detection and prognosis of PCa-s. The use of SBx alone would have missed the detection of PCa-s in 12% of patients.

Targeted Prostate Biopsy in the Era of Active Surveillance

Targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance is improving the accuracy of prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis. This new biopsy technology is especially important for men undergoing active surveillance, improving patient selection for enrollment and enabling precise longitudinal monitoring. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for 3 functions not previously possible with US-guided biopsy: targeting of suspicious regions, template-mapping for systematic sampling, and tracking of cancer foci over time. This article reviews the evolving role of the new biopsy methods in active surveillance, including the UCLA Active Surveillance pathway, which has incorporated magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy from program inception as a possible model.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preventing clinical progression and need for treatment in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is an established treatment option for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer (CaP). It entails the postponement of immediate therapy with the option of delayed intervention upon disease progression. The rate of clinical progression and need for treatment on active surveillance is approximately 50% over 15 years. The present review summarizes recent data on current methods, attempting to prevent clinical progression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient selection for active surveillance is the first mandatory step required to lower progression. Adherence to active surveillance protocols is critical in making sure patients are monitored well and treated early when progression occurs. Before active surveillance allocation and during active surveillance follow-up, methods involving multiparametric MRI, prostate specific antigen derivatives, biopsy factors, urinary, tissue and genetic markers can be used to prevent clinical progression and/or identify those at risk for progression. Medications such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and others might inhibit disease progression in patients on active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is required because of overdiagnosis, along with our inability to accurately predict individual CaP behavior. Several methods can potentially reduce the risk of CaP progression in patients with active surveillance. However, a measure of uncertainty and fear of progression will always accompany patients with active surveillance and the physicians treating them.

The Influence of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen on the Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy versus Saturation Biopsy in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsy

Objective

We compared the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates of targeted biopsy (TB) and saturation biopsy (SB) in patients with previous negative biopsy and the accuracy of TB and SB stratified by different serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.

Materials and Methods

Overall 185 patients were enrolled. In the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) group, 65 men underwent TB and SB. In the control group, 120 men underwent SB alone. The primary outcome was the difference in PCa detection rate between the MRI group and control group. The secondary outcome was the difference in accuracy between TB and SB in detecting clinically significant PCa by stratifying the patients in the MRI group into those with PSA < 10 ng/ml and PSA ≥ 10 ng/ml.

Results

The detection rates for overall and clinically significant PCa were higher in the MRI group than in the control group (46.2% versus 20.9% and 43.1% versus 16.7%, both p < 0.001). In the MRI group, the accuracy of TB was higher than SB (94.7% versus 84.2%, p = 0.001) for the patients with PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL.

Conclusions

Combining TB and SB achieved the best cancer detection rate. The accuracy of TB was better than SB in the patients with serum PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL.

The role of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient analysis for predicting outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance

PURPOSE

To explore the role of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) analysis for predicting outcomes in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.

METHODS

This study included 72 prostate cancer patients who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy at the initiation of active surveillance, had a visible MRI lesion in the region of tumor on biopsy, and underwent 3T baseline and follow-up MRI examinations separated by at least one year. Thirty of the patients also underwent an additional MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy after the follow-up MRI. Whole-lesion ADC metrics and lesion volumes were computed from 3D whole-lesion volumes-of-interest placed on lesions on the baseline and follow-up ADC maps. The percent change in lesion volume on the ADC map between the serial examinations was computed. Statistical analysis included unpaired t tests, ROC analysis, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Baseline mean ADC, ADC_{0-10th-percentile}, ADC_{10-25th-percentile}, and ADC_{25-50th-percentile} were all significantly lower in lesions exhibiting ≥50% growth on the ADC map compared with remaining lesions (all P ≤ 0.007), with strongest difference between lesions with and without ≥50% growth observed for ADC_{0-10th-percentile} (585 ± 308 vs. 911 ± 336; P = 0.001). ADC_{0-10th-percentile} achieved highest performance for predicting ≥50% growth (AUC = 0.754). Mean percent change in tumor volume on the ADC map was 62.3% ± 26.9% in patients with GS ≥ 3 + 4 on follow-up biopsy compared with 3.6% ± 64.6% in remaining patients (P = 0.050).

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary results suggest a role for 3D whole-lesion ADC analysis in prostate cancer active surveillance.

Current Management Strategy for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance has been increasingly utilized as a strategy for the management of favorable-risk, localized prostate cancer. In this review, we describe contemporary management strategies of active surveillance, with a focus on traditional stratification schemes, new prognostic tools, and patient outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient selection, follow-up strategy, and indication for delayed intervention for active surveillance remain centered around PSA, digital rectal exam, and biopsy findings. Novel tools which include imaging, biomarkers, and genetic assays have been investigated as potential prognostic adjuncts; however, their role in active surveillance remains institutionally dependent. Although 30-50% of patients on active surveillance ultimately undergo delayed treatment, the vast majority will remain free of metastasis with a low risk of dying from prostate cancer. The optimal method for patient selection into active surveillance is unknown; however, cancer-specific mortality rates remain excellent. New prognostication tools are promising, and long-term prospective, randomized data regarding their use in active surveillance will be beneficial.

Reclassification Rates of Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance After the Addition of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy: An Analysis of 7 Widely Used Eligibility Criteria

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of adding magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion biopsy cores to standard 12-core biopsy in selecting men for active surveillance (AS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among men undergoing a fusion biopsy for evaluation of prostate cancer, we selected men who were eligible for at least 1 of 7 different AS criteria based on the standard biopsy alone. We assessed each patient's eligibility for each AS criterion with and without the inclusion of fusion biopsy cores. The primary end point was the proportion of men who were initially eligible for AS but became ineligible after addition of the fusion biopsy cores.

RESULTS

A total of 100 men were eligible for at least 1 AS criterion. After addition of fusion biopsy cores, the proportion of men who became ineligible for AS varied from 10.3% to 40.7%. Criteria that incorporated an absolute maximum number of cores positive had the highest rates of ineligibility. Using a percentage of cores positive helped to reduce the number of patients who would have been excluded. Combining the targeted biopsy cores into one, or taking the single core with the highest grade or volume did not appear to reduce the proportion of men who became ineligible.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fusion biopsy to standard 12-core biopsy significantly increased the number of men who became ineligible for AS. Using the percent of cores positive, instead of an absolute number, allowed fewer exclusions. AS criteria may need to be updated to prevent the unnecessary exclusion of men due to an oversampling of low-risk disease.

Clinical and multiparametric MRI signatures of granulomatous prostatitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to differentiate granulomatous prostatitis (GP) from high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) based on clinical findings and imaging characteristics on multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI).

METHODS

Pathology from patients undergoing MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsies between 2014 and 2015 was reviewed. Five patients with biopsy proven GP were identified as well as 15 patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7 PCa. Patients were matched for age, serum PSA level, and prebiopsy-assigned MP-MRI cancer suspicion scores. MP-MRI studies were reviewed to identify findings that would differentiate GP from PCa in patients who had equally high suspicion scores based upon imaging characteristics.

RESULTS

All five patients with GP on MR/US fusion-targeted biopsies were assigned a PIRADS 4 or 5 suspicion score. There were equally high suspicion scores on MP-MRI for both groups (p = 0.57). Re-evaluation of the MRI characteristics of the 5 GP patients and 15 matched controls who had pathologically proven Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7 PCa on targeted biopsy demonstrated statistically lower mean ADC values within the index targeted lesion for PCa vs. GP (p = 0.002) Qualitatively, no patients with GP on biopsy had imaging evidence of higher-staged disease, while 33% of patients in the high-risk PCa cohort demonstrated at least one high-stage feature (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Patients with GP routinely have MRIs with moderate to high levels of suspicion for harboring PCa. Re-evaluation of these patients' imaging demonstrated characteristics including significantly higher ADC values and absence of high-stage features, which may help differentiate areas of GP from PCa in the future.

Role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a beneficial strategy for management of low risk prostate cancer (PCa) and prevention of overtreatment of indolent disease. However, selection of patients for AS using traditional 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy is prone to sampling error and presents a challenge for accurate risk stratification. In fact, around a third of men are upgraded on repeat biopsy which disqualifies them as appropriate AS candidates. This uncertainty affects adoption of AS among patients and physicians, leading to current AS protocols involving repetitive prostate biopsies and unclear triggers for progression to definitive treatment. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to overcome some of these limitations through localization of significant tumors in the prostate. In conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, improved sampling and detection of clinically significant PCa can help streamline the process of selecting suitable men for AS and early exclusion of men who require definitive treatment. MRI can also help minimize the invasive nature of monitoring for disease progression while on AS. Men with stable MRI findings have high negative predictive value for Gleason upgrade on subsequently biopsy, suggesting that men may potentially be monitored by serial MRI examinations with biopsy reserved for significant changes on imaging. Targeted biopsy on AS also allows for specific sampling of concerning lesions, although further data is necessary to evaluate the relative contribution of systematic and targeted biopsy in detecting the 25-30% of men who progress on AS. Further research is also warranted to better understand the nature of clinically significant cancers that are missed on MRI and why certain men have progression of disease that is not visible on prostate MRI. Consensus is also needed over what constitutes progression on MRI, when prostate biopsy can be safely avoided, and how to best utilize this additional information in current AS protocols. Despite these challenges, prostate MRI, either alone or in conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, has the potential to significantly improve our current AS paradigm and rates of AS adoption among patients moving forward.

MR/US Fusion Technology: What Makes It Tick?

MR/US fusion biopsy has emerged as a significant refinement of traditional prostate cancer diagnostic techniques. Utilizing not only quantitative imaging suspicion information from mpMRI but also the spatial accuracy and three-dimensional localization allows such strategies to specifically sample areas of concern with the gland. As such, diagnostic certainty is markedly improved. In this manuscript, we aim to highlight the multidisciplinary approach (amongst urologists, radiologists, pathologists, imaging technologists, nursing staff, and patients) which is required to launch and maintain a successful prostate imaging program.

Role of Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine

Precision medicine is an emerging approach for treating medical disorders, which takes into account individual variability in genetic and environmental factors. Preventive or therapeutic interventions can then be directed to those who will benefit most from targeted interventions, thereby maximizing benefits and minimizing costs and complications. Precision medicine is gaining increasing recognition by clinicians, healthcare systems, pharmaceutical companies, patients, and the government. Imaging plays a critical role in precision medicine including screening, early diagnosis, guiding treatment, evaluating response to therapy, and assessing likelihood of disease recurrence. The Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Precision Imaging Task Force convened to explore the current and future role of imaging in the era of precision medicine and summarized its finding in this article. We review the increasingly important role of imaging in various oncological and non-oncological disorders. We also highlight the challenges for radiology in the era of precision medicine.

Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the rate of upgrading to Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater using targeted biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study subjects comprised all 259 men, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 63 with Gleason score 3 + 4, who were diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy from 2009 to 2015 and underwent subsequent fusion biopsy for as long as 4 years of active surveillance. The primary end point was the discovery of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater prostate cancer. Followup biopsies included targeting of positive sites, which were tracked in an Artemis™ device. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine upgrading rates, stratified by initial Gleason score and prostate specific antigen density.

RESULTS

Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, men with Gleason score 3 + 4 were 4.65 times more likely to have upgrading than men with an initial Gleason score of 3 + 3 at 3 years (p <0.01). By the third surveillance year 63% of men with Gleason score 3 + 4 had been upgraded compared with 18.0% who started with Gleason score 3 + 3 (p <0.01). Of all 33 upgrades 32 (97%) occurred at a magnetic resonance imaging visible or a tracked site of tumor, rather than at a previously negative systematic site. Independent predictors of upgrading were Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and a grade 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. The incidence rate ratio of upgrading (Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 3 + 3) was 4.25 per year of patient followup (p <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

During active surveillance of prostate cancer, targeting of tracked tumor foci by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for heightened detection of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater cancers. Baseline variables directly related to important upgrading that warrant increased vigilance include Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and grade 5 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.