Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Incremental Value

Transcript Markers from Urinary Extracellular Vesicles for Predicting Risk Reclassification of Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance

Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), its derivatives, and magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for the prediction of risk reclassification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS). We investigated selected transcripts in urinary extracellular vesicles (uEV) from PCa patients on AS to predict PCa risk reclassification (defined by ISUP 1 with PSA > 10 ng/mL or ISUP 2-5 with any PSA level) in control biopsy. Before the control biopsy, urine samples were prospectively collected from 72 patients, of whom 43% were reclassified during AS. Following RNA isolation from uEV, multiplexed reverse transcription, and pre-amplification, 29 PCa-associated transcripts were quantified by quantitative PCR. The predictive ability of the transcripts to indicate PCa risk reclassification was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses via calculation of the area under the curve (AUC) and was then compared to clinical parameters followed by multivariate regression analysis. ROC curve analyses revealed a predictive potential for AMACR, HPN, MALAT1, PCA3, and PCAT29 (AUC = 0.614-0.655, p < 0.1). PSA, PSA density, PSA velocity, and MRI maxPI-RADS showed AUC values of 0.681-0.747 (p < 0.05), with accuracies for indicating a PCa risk reclassification of 64-68%. A model including AMACR, MALAT1, PCAT29, PSA density, and MRI maxPI-RADS resulted in an AUC of 0.867 (p < 0.001) with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 87%, 83%, and 85%, respectively, thus surpassing the predictive power of the individual markers. These findings highlight the potential of uEV transcripts in combination with clinical parameters as monitoring markers during the AS of PCa.

Adequacy of clinical guideline recommendations for patients with low-risk cancer managed with monitoring: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool.

RESULTS

Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.

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.

Targeted Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Quantitative Gleason 4 Grading Prediction in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Implications for Active Surveillance Candidate Selection

BACKGROUND

Quantitative Gleason grading appears to be a reliable prognostic parameter and provides broader risk stratification then the traditional Gleason grading in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if quantification of Gleason pattern (GP) 4 for targeted and systematic biopsy (TBx + SBx) cores together with further clinical variables can identify the lowest quantitative GP 4 fraction on RP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 548 patients underwent TBx + SBx of the prostate and then RP, with pathology revealing Gleason score 3 + 4, 4 + 3, or 4 + 4 disease.

INTERVENTION

TBx + SBx of the prostate followed by RP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

GP 4 fraction thresholds of ≤5%, ≤10%, ≤15%, ≤20%, and ≤25% were compared between the TBx + SBx and RP specimens. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy for predicting the GP 4 fraction in the RP specimen were determined. Logistic regression models were used to establish a probabilistic relationship between various combinations of clinical and biopsy variables and the GP 4 fraction in the RP specimen.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

GP 4 fractions of ≤5%, ≤10%, ≤15%, ≤20%, and ≤25% was observed in 33%, 49%, 58%, 65%, and 70% of patients on TBx, and 18%, 41%, 53%, 63%, and 70% of patients on RP, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy were 75%, 67%, 91%, 39%, and 74% for a TBx GP 4 fraction of ≤5%, and 65%, 85%, 65%, 85%, and 79% for a TBx GP 4 fraction of ≤25%, respectively. A model combining quantified TBx + SBx GP 4 with clinical parameters demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy. Limitations include the retrospective study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the combination of MRI-TBx + SBx and GP 4 quantification allowed precise detection of a low fraction of GP 4 when using RP specimens as the reference standard. Moreover, we found that clinical variables including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score without biopsy are limited in detection of low GP 4 fractions.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Combination of targeted biopsy alone as well as combined with systematic biopsy and quantitative Gleason grading of biopsy specimen showed high agreement with pathology findings after surgical removal of the prostate. This could help in identifying patients who are suitable for active surveillance.

AI-assisted biparametric MRI surveillance of prostate cancer: feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of automatic longitudinal analysis of consecutive biparametric MRI (bpMRI) scans to detect clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

This retrospective study included a multi-center dataset of 1513 patients who underwent bpMRI (T2 + DWI) between 2014 and 2020, of whom 73 patients underwent at least two consecutive bpMRI scans and repeat biopsies. A deep learning PCa detection model was developed to produce a heatmap of all PIRADS ≥ 2 lesions across prior and current studies. The heatmaps for each patient's prior and current examination were used to extract differential volumetric and likelihood features reflecting explainable changes between examinations. A machine learning classifier was trained to predict from these features csPCa (ISUP > 1) at the current examination according to biopsy. A classifier trained on the current study only was developed for comparison. An extended classifier was developed to incorporate clinical parameters (PSA, PSA density, and age). The cross-validated diagnostic accuracies were compared using ROC analysis. The diagnostic performance of the best model was compared to the radiologist scores.

RESULTS

The model including prior and current study (AUC 0.81, CI: 0.69, 0.91) resulted in a higher (p = 0.04) diagnostic accuracy than the current only model (AUC 0.73, CI: 0.61, 0.84). Adding clinical variables further improved diagnostic performance (AUC 0.86, CI: 0.77, 0.93). The diagnostic performance of the surveillance AI model was significantly better (p = 0.02) than of radiologists (AUC 0.69, CI: 0.54, 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed AI-assisted surveillance of prostate MRI can pick up explainable, diagnostically relevant changes with promising diagnostic accuracy.

KEY POINTS

• Sequential prostate MRI scans can be automatically evaluated using a hybrid deep learning and machine learning approach. • The diagnostic accuracy of our csPCa detection AI model improved by including clinical parameters.

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.

Unified model involving genomics, magnetic resonance imaging and prostate‐specific antigen density outperforms individual co‐variables at predicting biopsy upgrading in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is the reference standard treatment for the management of low risk prostate cancer (PCa). Accurate assessment of tumor aggressiveness guides recruitment to AS programs to avoid conservative treatment of intermediate and higher risk patients. Nevertheless, underestimating the disease risk may occur in some patients recruited, with biopsy upgrading and the concomitant potential for delayed treatment.

Aim

To evaluate the accuracy of mpMRI and GPS for the prediction of biopsy upgrading during active surveillance (AS) management of prostate cancer (PCa).

Method

A retrospective analysis was performed on 144 patients recruited to AS from October 2013 to December 2020. Median follow was 4.8 (IQR 3.6, 6.3) years. Upgrading was defined as upgrading to biopsy grade group ≥2 on follow up biopsies. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to investigate the effect of PSA density (PSAD), baseline Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) v2.1 score and GPS on upgrading. Time‐to‐event outcome, defined as upgrading, was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method with log‐rank test.

Results

Overall rate of upgrading was 31.9% (n = 46). PSAD was higher in the patients who were upgraded (0.12 vs. 0.08 ng/ml², p = .005), while no significant difference was present for median GPS in the overall cohort (overall median GPS 21; 22 upgrading vs. 20 no upgrading, p = .2044). On univariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the factors associated with increased risk of biopsy upgrading were PSA (HR = 1.30, CI 1.16–1.47, p = <.0001), PSAD (HR = 1.08, CI 1.05–1.12, p = <.0001) and higher PI‐RADS score (HR = 3.51, CI 1.56–7.91, p = .0024). On multivariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis, only PSAD (HR = 1.10, CI 1.06–1.14, p = <.001) and high PI‐RADS score (HR = 4.11, CI 1.79–9.44, p = .0009) were associated with upgrading. A cox regression model combining these three clinical features (PSAD ≥0.15 ng/ml² at baseline, PI‐RADS Score and GPS) yielded a concordance index of 0.71 for the prediction of upgrading.

Conclusion

In this study PSAD has higher accuracy over baseline PI‐RADS score and GPS score for the prediction of PCa upgrading during AS. However, combined use of PSAD, GPS and PI‐RADS Score yielded the highest predictive ability with a concordance index of 0.71.

The utility of prostate MRI within active surveillance: description of the evidence

Purpose

We present an overview of the literature regarding the use of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Methods

Both MEDLINE^® and Cochrane Library were queried up to May 2020 for studies of men on active surveillance with MRI and later confirmatory biopsy. The terms studied were ‘prostate cancer’ as the anchor followed by two of the following: active surveillance, surveillance, active monitoring, MRI, NMR, magnetic resonance imaging,  MRI, and multiparametric MRI. Studies were excluded if pathologic reclassification (GG1 →  ≥ GG2) and PI-RADS or equivalent was not reported.

Results

Within active surveillance, baseline MRI is effective for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer and thus associated with fewer reclassification events. A positive initial MRI (≥ PI-RADS 3) with GG1 identified at biopsy has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35–40% for reclassification by 3 years. MRI possessed a stronger negative predictive value, with a negative MRI (≤ PI-RADS 2) yielding a negative predictive value of up to 85% at 3 years. Surveillance MRI, obtained after initial biopsy, yielded a PPV of 11–65% and NPV of 85–95% for reclassification.

Conclusion

MRI is useful for initial risk stratification of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, especially if MRI is negative when imaging is obtained during surveillance. While useful, MRI cannot replace biopsy and further research is necessary to fully integrate MRI into active surveillance.

Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation active surveillance prostate cancer cohort: a characterisation of a prostate cancer active surveillance database

Background

The routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa.

Methods

Demographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort.

Discussion

A relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79–3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94–3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53–0.98).

Conclusion

An organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient’s diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08255-z.

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

CONTEXT

Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.

MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance

OBJECTIVES

To assess the predictive value and correlation to pathological progression of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system in the follow-up of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

A total of 295 men enrolled on an AS programme between 2011 and 2018 were included. Baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed at AS entry to guide biopsy. The follow-up mpMRI studies were prospectively reported by two sub-specialist uroradiologists with 10 years and 13 years of experience. PRECISE scores were dichotomized at the cut-off value of 4, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Diagnostic performance was further quantified by using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) which was based on the results of targeted MRI-US fusion biopsy. Univariate analysis using Cox regression was performed to assess which baseline clinical and mpMRI parameters were related to disease progression on AS.

RESULTS

Progression rate of the cohort was 13.9% (41/295) over a median follow-up of 52 months. With a cut-off value of category ≥ 4, the PRECISE scoring system showed sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for predicting progression on AS of 0.76, 0.89, 0.52 and 0.96, respectively. The AUC was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.74-0.90). Prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), Likert lesion score and index lesion size were the only significant baseline predictors of progression (each p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PRECISE scoring system showed good overall performance, and the high NPV may help limit the number of follow-up biopsies required in patients on AS.

KEY POINTS

• PRECISE scores 1-3 have high NPV which could reduce the need for re-biopsy during active surveillance. • PRECISE scores 4-5 have moderate PPV and should trigger either close monitoring or re-biopsy. • Three baseline predictors (PSA density, lesion size and Likert score) have a significant impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) time.

Multiparametric MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: An Overview and a Practical Approach

MRI has become important for the detection of prostate cancer. MRI-guided biopsy is superior to conventional systematic biopsy in patients suspected with prostate cancer. MRI is also increasingly used for monitoring patients with low-risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. It improves patient selection for active surveillance at diagnosis, although its role during follow-up is unclear. We aim to review existing evidence and propose a practical approach for incorporating MRI into active surveillance protocols.

Characteristics and risk differences of different tumor size on localized prostate cancer: A retrospective cohort study in the SEER database

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the role of tumor size in predicting tumor risk for localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Twenty‐five thousand, one hundred twenty‐seven men with PCa receiving RP from 2010 to 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan–Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to illustrate overall survival (OS) according to the tumor size. The tumor size was confirmed by postoperative pathology after RP.

Results

Among overall localized PCa, 84.6% were high‐risk PCa, 9.2% were intermediate‐risk PCa, and 6.2% were low‐risk PCa. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that tumor size ≥21 mm was an independent risk predict factor of low‐risk PCa (odds ratio [OR]: 11.940; 95% CI, 9.404–15.161; p < 0.001) and intermediate‐risk PCa (OR: 1.887; 95% CI, 1.586–2.245; p < 0.001). Tumor sizes ≤5 mm significantly correlated with high‐risk PCa (p < 0.001). Tumor size ≤5 mm had the worst OS in overall localized PCa and high‐risk PCa (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In localized PCa, tumor sizes ≥21 mm may help predict low or intermediate‐risk PCa, while tumor sizes ≤5 mm might help predict high‐risk PCa. In clinical practice, we should be on high alert for patients with tumors size ≤5 mm due to its poor prognosis after RP.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging facilitates reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the reassessment and monitoring of patients on active surveillance (AS) for Grade Group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified, from our prospectively maintained institutional review board-approved database, 181 consecutive men enrolled on AS for GG 1 PCa who underwent at least one surveillance mpMRI followed by MRI/prostate biopsy (PBx). A subset analysis was performed among 68 patients who underwent serial (at least two) mpMRI/PBx during AS. Pathological progression (PP) was defined as upgrade to GG ≥2 on follow up biopsy.

RESULTS

Baseline MRI was performed in 34 patients (19%). At a median follow-up of 2.2 years for the overall cohort, the PP was 12% (6/49) for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2 lesions and 37% (48/129) for the PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. The 2-year PP-free survival rate was 84%. Surveillance prostate-specific antigen density (P < 0.001) and surveillance PI-RADS ≥3 (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of PP on reassessment MRI/PBx. In the serial MRI cohort, the 2-year PP-free survival was 95% for the No-MRI-progression group vs 85% for the MRI-progression group (P = 0.02). MRI progression was significantly higher in the PP (62%) than in the No-PP (31%) group (P = 0.04). If serial MRI were used for PCa surveillance and biopsy were triggered based only on MRI progression, 63% of PBx might be postponed at the cost of missing 12% of GG ≥2 PCa in those with stable MRI. Conversely, this strategy would miss 38% of those with upgrading to GG ≥2 PCa on biopsy. Stable serial mpMRI correlates with no reclassification to GG ≥3 PCa during AS.

CONCLUSION

On surveillance mpMRI, PI-RADS ≥3 was associated with increased risk of PCa reclassification. Surveillance biopsy based only on MRI progression may avoid a large number of biopsies at the cost of missing many PCa reclassifications.

Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

Objectives

The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol.

Methods

A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves.

Results

Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Conclusions

Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

Key Points

• Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy.

• Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS.

• Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07256-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict postoperative Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer with Gleason score 3 + 4

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in Gleason score (GS) 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa) and evaluate independent factors in mpMRI that can predict GS upgrading, we compared the outcomes of GS upgrading group and GS non-upgrading group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the data of 539 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for biopsy GS 3 + 4 PCa from two tertiary referral centers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of GS upgrading. GS upgrading, the study outcome, was defined as GS ≥ 4 + 3 at definitive pathology at RP specimen.

RESULTS

GS upgrading rate was 35.3% and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate was 8.0%. GS upgrading group was significantly older (p = 0.015), had significantly higher prebiopsy serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (p = 0.001) and PSA density (p = 0.003), had a higher number of prostate biopsy (p = 0.026). There were 413 lesions (76.6%) of PI-RADS lesion ≥ 4, 236 (57.1%) for PI-RADS 4 and 177 (42.9%) for PI-RADS 5 lesion. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age (p = 0.045), initial prebiopsy PSA level (p = 0.002) and presence of PI-RADS lesion ≥ 4 (p = 0.044) are independent predictors of GS upgrading.

CONCLUSION

MpMRI can predict postoperative Gleason score upgrading in prostate cancer with Gleason score 3 + 4. Especially, presence of clinically significant PI-RADS lesion ≥ 4, the significant predictor of GS upgrading, in preoperative mpMRI needs to be paid attention and can be helpful for patient counseling on prostate cancer treatment.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives

To assess the ability of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) of the prostate to exclude prostate cancer (PCa) progression during monitoring patients on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients on AS with mp-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI) at 3T were initially enrolled. Fifty-five received follow-up mp-MRI after a minimum interval of 12 months and subsequent targeted MR/US fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) plus concurrent systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-GB) biopsy as reference standard. Primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the follow-up mp-MRI to exclude histopathologic tumor progression using PRECISE recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, Gleason score (GS) upgrades, and comparison of biopsy method.

Results

Of 55 patients, 29 (53%) had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. All 29 patients showed a tumor progression on follow-up mp-MRI. Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) displayed signs of tumor progression, but had stable GS on re-biopsy. None of the 11 patients (20%) without signs of progression on follow-up mp-MRI had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. The NPV was 100%, PPV was 66%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity 42%. FUS-GB resulted in GS upgrade significantly more often (n = 28; 51%) compared with TRUS-GB (n = 12; 22%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

(Follow-up) Mp-MRI can reliably exclude PCa progression in patients on AS. Standard serial re-biopsies might be waived if follow-up mp-MRIs are stable. Over 60% of patients with signs of tumor progression on mp-MRI during AS had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. Targeted re-biopsies should be performed if cancer progression or higher-grade PCa is suspected on mp-MRI.

Key Points

• None of the patients with unsuspicious mp-MRI had a GS upgrade in re-biopsy and mp-MRI might replace serial biopsies in these cases

• More than 60% of patients with mp-MRI signs of tumor progression had subsequent Gleason score (GS) upgrades

• Targeted re-biopsies should be performed in case of higher GS cancer suspicion on mp-MRI

Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.

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

Objectives

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Effects of "real life" prostate MRI inter-observer variability on total needle samples and indication for biopsy

PURPOSE

Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves diagnosis of clinically significant cancer and reduces over-detection of nonsignificant cancer. Disagreement in the interpretation of mpMRI readings is well-known, with a reported discrepancy rate of 10% to 42%. We report the clinical repercussions of this variability on prostate biopsy candidates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of patients referred from 11 medical centers for MR-guided prostate biopsy (MRGpB) between October, 2017 and January, 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with at least one prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3 or greater prostate lesion were selected, and the mpMRI studies (all read by others) were reviewed by our prostate mpMRI reader. Outcomes included changes in PI-RADS score and the subsequent effect on total needle samples and indication for biopsy.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients with 128 lesions were suitable for analysis (mean age 66.5 ± 7.1 years, mean PSA 6.8 ± 8.5 ng/ml). Nine (11%) patients had suspicious rectal exams (T2a). Following our prostate mpMRI reader's imaging revisions, the PI-RADS score was downgraded in 66 (52%) lesions, upgraded in 15 (12%), and unchanged in 47 (37%), leaving a total of 84 suspected lesions (kappa = 0.17). Biopsy was deferred in 22 (27%) patients, and an estimated 136.4 (34.4%) samples were avoided (P = 0.0001 for both). There was a trend toward prostate size to correlate with imaging revision and abortion of biopsy (P = 0.06) while enrollment in active surveillance correlated with proof from such outcome (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that high interobserver disagreement in prostate mpMRIs from diverse institutes significantly affects prostate biopsy practice. The clinical consequences of this discord are significant.

Evaluation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Predictor of Grade Reclassification in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on initial multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and biopsy grade reclassification (GR) to grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer (CaP) in men on active surveillance (AS) with GG 1 CaP.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 242 AS patients with reported ADC values on their initial mpMRI. ADC value from the index lesion was assessed as an independent predictor of GR using a Cox model. To ease clinical interpretation, we used a log-rank test to establish an ADC cutoff of 1128 × 10^-6 mm²/s for Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 242 men, 70 underwent GR following initial mpMRI, of which 26 (37%) had GR at the index lesion. There was no significant difference in the median interval between biopsies for men with and without GR (P >.9). Men with GR had significantly lower median ADC than those without GR (P = .01). In multivariable analysis adjusting for age, prostate-specific antigen density, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, a 100-unit decrease in ADC was associated with a 12% increase in the risk of GR (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.22, P = .03). Two- and 4-year rates of freedom from GR were significantly lower for men with ADC <1128 × 10^-6 mm²/s vs ADC ≥1128 × 10^-6 mm²/s (62% and 42% vs 78% and 68%, respectively; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

For AS patients, lower ADC on initial mpMRI index lesion is associated with increased risk of GR to GG ≥2 CaP and would be a useful component of multivariable risk prediction tools.

The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the Detection, Evaluation, and Surveillance of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the long-standing controversy surrounding the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of prostate cancer, there is a need for a minimally invasive technique to identify and risk-stratify these patients. Additionally, in an effort to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), there has been a shift in practice towards the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in conjunction with decision-making regarding prostate cancer diagnosis and management. In the current review, we summarize the data regarding the use of mpMRI in the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of csPCa.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent prospective clinical trials have determined that a pre-biopsy mpMRI may rule out insignificant prostate cancers, thereby reducing the number of patients who require a biopsy. The anatomic information gathered from these pre-biopsy mpMRI performed during MRI fusion biopsy in csPCa increases the accuracy of pathologic staging in terms of Gleason scores. In regard to active surveillance, prospective trials suggest little to no clinical utility for mpMRI and fusion biopsy in the surveillance of prostate cancer despite conflicting findings from retrospective studies. Recent trials suggest that mpMRI can play an important role in the detection and evaluation of csPCa. The ideal role for mpMRI in active surveillance remains limited.

A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). This study describes a novel total cancer location (TCLo) density metric and aims to determine its performance in predicting clinical progression (CP) and grade progression (GP).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients on AS after confirmatory biopsy (CBx). We excluded patients with Gleason ≥7 at CBx and <2 years followup. TCLo was the number of locations with positive cores at diagnosis (DBx) and CBx. TCLo density was TCLo/prostate volume (PV). CP was progression to any active treatment while GP occurred if Gleason ≥7 was identified on repeat biopsy or surgical pathology. Independent predictors of time to CP or GP were estimated with Cox regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared progression-free survival (PFS) curves between TCLo density groups. Test characteristics of TCLo density were explored with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

We included 181 patients who had CBx from 2012-2015 and met inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 62.58 years (standard deviation [SD] 7.13) and median followup was 60.9 months (interquartile range [IQR] 23.4). A high TCLo density score (>0.05) was independently associated with time to CP (hazard ratio [HR] 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-8.42; p<0.001) and GP (HR 3.85; 95% CI 1.91-7.73; p<0.001). ROC curves showed TCLo density has greater area under the curve than number of positive cores at CBx in predicting progression.

CONCLUSIONS

TCLo density is able to stratify patients on AS for risk of CP and GP. With further validation, it could be added to the decision-making algorithm in AS for low-risk localized PCa.

MRI to guide biopsies or avoid biopsies?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To test whether using disease prognosis can inform a rational approach to active surveillance (AS) for early prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We previously developed the Cambridge Prognostics Groups (CPG) classification, a five-tiered model that uses prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Grade Group and Stage to predict cancer survival outcomes. We applied the CPG model to a UK and a Swedish prostate cancer cohort to test differences in prostate cancer mortality (PCM) in men managed conservatively or by upfront treatment in CPG2 and 3 (which subdivides the intermediate-risk classification) vs CPG1 (low-risk). We then applied the CPG model to a contemporary UK AS cohort, which was optimally characterised at baseline for disease burden, to identify predictors of true prognostic progression. Results were re-tested in an external AS cohort from Spain.

RESULTS

In a UK cohort (n = 3659) the 10-year PCM was 2.3% in CPG1, 1.5%/3.5% in treated/untreated CPG2, and 1.9%/8.6% in treated/untreated CPG3. In the Swedish cohort (n = 27 942) the10-year PCM was 1.0% in CPG1, 2.2%/2.7% in treated/untreated CPG2, and 6.1%/12.5% in treated/untreated CPG3. We then tested using progression to CPG3 as a hard endpoint in a modern AS cohort (n = 133). During follow-up (median 3.5 years) only 6% (eight of 133) progressed to CPG3. Predictors of progression were a PSA density ≥0.15 ng/mL/mL and CPG2 at diagnosis. Progression occurred in 1%, 8% and 21% of men with neither factor, only one, or both, respectively. In an independent Spanish AS cohort (n = 143) the corresponding rates were 3%, 10% and 14%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Using disease prognosis allows a rational approach to inclusion criteria, discontinuation triggers and risk-stratified management in AS.

Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: A multireader study

BACKGROUND

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been in use since 2015; while interreader reproducibility has been studied, there has been a paucity of studies investigating the intrareader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2.

PURPOSE

To evaluate both intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 in the assessment of intraprostatic lesions using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION/SUBJECTS

In all, 102 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MR/transrectal ultrasonography (MR/TRUS)-guided biopsy.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES

Prostate mpMRI at 3T using endorectal with phased array surface coils (TW MRI, DW MRI with ADC maps and b2000 DW MRI, DCE MRI).

ASSESSMENT

Previously detected and biopsied lesions were scored by four readers from four different institutions using PI-RADSv2. Readers scored lesions during two readout rounds with a 4-week washout period.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Kappa (κ) statistics and specific agreement (Po ) were calculated to quantify intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2 scoring. Lesion measurement agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Overall intrareader reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.43-0.67, Po  = 0.60-0.77), while overall interreader reproducibility was poor to moderate (κ = 0.24, Po  = 46). Readers with more experience showed greater interreader reproducibility than readers with intermediate experience in the whole prostate (P = 0.026) and peripheral zone (P = 0.002). Sequence-specific interreader agreement for all readers was similar to the overall PI-RADSv2 score, with κ = 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23 and Po  = 0.47, 0.44, and 0.54 in T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), respectively. Overall intrareader and interreader ICC for lesion measurement was 0.82 and 0.71, respectively.

DATA CONCLUSION

PI-RADSv2 provides moderate intrareader reproducibility, poor interreader reproducibility, and moderate interreader lesion measurement reproducibility. These findings suggest a need for more standardized reader training in prostate MRI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.

Outcomes of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Subsequent Biopsy in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and subsequent biopsy in monitoring prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have not been defined clearly.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether changes in serial mpMRI can predict pathological upgrade among men with grade group (GG) 1 PCa managed with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective analysis of men with GG1 on AS with at least two consecutive mpMRI examinations during 2012-2018 who underwent mpMRI/ultrasound fusion or systematic biopsies.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Progression on serial mpMRI was evaluated as a predictor of pathological upgrading to GG≥2 on a follow-up biopsy using clinical, pathological, and imaging factors in binary logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were determined.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 122 patients, 29 men (23.8%) experienced pathological upgrade on the follow-up biopsy. Progression on mpMRI was not associated with pathological upgrade. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mpMRI progression for predicting pathological upgrade were 41.3%, 54.8%, 22.2%, and 75%, respectively. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, p=0.006), Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on initial mpMRI (4-5 vs ≤3, OR 7.48, p=0.01), number of positive systematic cores (OR 1.84, p=0.03), number of positive targeted cores (OR 0.44, p=0.04), and maximum percent of targeted core tumor involvement (OR 1.04, p=0.01) were significantly associated with pathological upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe an association between mpMRI progression and pathological upgrade; however, a PI-RADS score of 4-5 on initial mpMRI was predictive of subsequent pathological progression. The continued use of systematic and fusion biopsies appears necessary due to risks of reclassification over time.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Progression on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance (AS) is not associated with progression on the follow-up biopsy. Both systematic and fusion biopsies are necessary to sufficiently capture progression during AS.

Detection of Individual Prostate Cancer Foci via Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) undoubtedly affects the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer (CaP). However, clinicians need a better understanding of its accuracy and limitations in detecting individual CaP foci to optimize management.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the per-lesion detection rate for CaP foci by mpMRI and identify predictors of tumor detection.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of a prospectively managed database correlating lesion-specific results from mpMRI co-registered with whole-mount pathology (WMP) prostatectomy specimens from June 2010 to February 2018. Participants include 588 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven CaP undergoing 3-T mpMRI before radical prostatectomy at a single tertiary institution.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We measured mpMRI sensitivity in detecting individual CaP and clinically significant (any Gleason score ≥7) CaP foci and predictors of tumor detection using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The final analysis included 1213 pathologically confirmed tumor foci in 588 patients with primarily intermediate- (75%) or high-risk (12%) CaP. mpMRI detected 45% of all lesions (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-47%), including 65% of clinically significant lesions (95% CI 61-69%) and nearly 80% of high-grade tumors. Some 74% and 31% of missed solitary and multifocal tumors, respectively, were clinically significant. The majority of missed lesions were small (61.1% ≤1cm); 28.3% were between 1 and 2cm, and 10.4% were >2cm. mpMRI missed at least one clinically significant focus in 34% of patients overall, and in 45% of men with multifocal lesions. On multivariate analysis, smaller, low-grade, multifocal, nonindex tumors with lower prostate-specific antigen density were more likely to be missed. Limitations include selection bias in a prostatectomy cohort, lack of specificity data, an imperfect co-registration process, and uncertain clinical significance for undetected lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI detects less than half of all and less than two-thirds of clinically significant CaP foci. The moderate per-lesion sensitivity and significant proportion of men with undetected tumor foci demonstrate the current limitations of mpMRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate before surgical removal for prostate cancer finds less than half of all individual prostate cancer tumors. Large, solitary, aggressive tumors are more likely to be visualized on imaging.

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.

Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether replacement of protocol-driven repeat prostate biopsy (PB) with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) ± repeat targeted prostate biopsy (TB) when evaluating men on active surveillance (AS) for low-volume, low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) altered the likelihood of or time to treatment, or reduced the number of repeat biopsies required to trigger treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 445 patients underwent AS in the period 2010-2016 at our institution, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up of 2.4 (1.2-3.7) years. Up to 2014, patients followed a 'pre-2014' AS protocol, which incorporated PB, and subsequently, according to the 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, patients followed a '2014-present' AS protocol that included mpMRI. We identified four groups of patients within the cohort: 'no mpMRI and no PB'; 'PB alone'; 'mpMRI ± TB'; and 'PB and mpMRI ± TB'. Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

Of 445 patients, 132 (30%) discontinued AS and underwent treatment intervention, with a median (IQR) time to treatment of 1.55 (0.71-2.4) years. The commonest trigger for treatment was PCa upgrading after mpMRI and TB (43/132 patients, 29%). No significant difference was observed in the time at which patients receiving a PB alone or receiving mpMRI ± TB discontinued AS to undergo treatment (median 1.9 vs 1.33 years; P = 0.747). Considering only those patients who underwent repeat biopsy, a greater proportion of patients receiving TB after mpMRI discontinued AS compared with those receiving PB alone (29/66 [44%] vs 32/87 [37%]; P = 0.003). On average, a single set of repeat biopsies was needed to trigger treatment regardless of whether this was a PB or TB.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing a systematic PB with mpMRI ±TB as part of an AS protocol increased the likelihood of re-classifying patients on AS and identifying men with clinically significant disease requiring treatment. mpMRI ±TB as part of AS thereby represents a significant advance in the oncological safety of the AS protocol.

The natural history of prostate cancer on MRI: lessons from an active surveillance cohort

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is being used increasingly in the setting of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. We investigated changes in the mpMRI appearance of lesions on AS, to show the variability of volume measurements in visible lesions and assess change in lesion size according to grade.

METHODS

We retrospectively retrieved 86 men on AS (NICE guidelines) with more than one mpMRI (the first before 2013). Two radiologists, in consensus, were blinded to patient demographics and date of scan. The scans were randomly reported to reduce any bias. For visible lesions, we measured volume by planimetry on the sequence best showing the most conspicuous (index) tumour and attributed a 5-point Likert score.

RESULTS

43/86 men did not have a visible lesion on the initial mpMRI (≤2/5). Of these, 5/43 had developed a lesion scoring ≥3/5 at a median of 3.6 years of follow up. 40/86 had a lesion scoring ≥3/5 on two or more scans. There was a significant increase in volume over 3.6 years by a median of 10% (p < 0.01)-by a median of 6% for Gleason 3+3 and 18% for 3+4 (p = 0.058). Thirty-five men had a visible lesion on two scans separated by <2 years; of these, 21/35 showed a 78% median increase in tumour size between the two scans and 11/35 showed an apparent 25% median decrease in lesion size.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 17% of men with no visible lesion developed a visible lesion at a median follow up of 3.6 years. It is possible to show significant growth in patients with a visible lesion, but variability in volume measurements between scans means that it is difficult to reliably detect increases of this order. This variability may inform the design of mpMRI protocols in AS and the time between follow up scans.

Entering an era of radiogenomics in prostate cancer risk stratification

Radiogenomics is a field that amalgamates data from genomics and imaging techniques in order to derive clinically meaningful trends. In this article, we discuss the importance of prostate cancer risk classification and how data derived from genomic testing and multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can be integrated into clinical decision-making processes with a focus on active surveillance (AS). Finally, we describe an ongoing prospective trial (Miami MAST trial) which incorporates imaging (mpMRI) and radiomics data in patients who are on AS for prostate cancer.

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

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

MRI in active surveillance: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

Active surveillance has gained popularity as an acceptable management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Successful utilization of this strategy can delay or prevent unnecessary interventions - thereby reducing morbidity associated with overtreatment. The usefulness of active surveillance primarily depends on correct identification of patients with low-risk disease. However, current population-wide algorithms and tools do not adequately exclude high-risk disease, thereby limiting the confidence of clinicians and patients to go on active surveillance. Novel imaging tools such as mpMRI provide information about the size and location of potential cancers enabling more informed treatment decisions. The term “multiparametric” in prostate mpMRI refers to the summation of several MRI series into one examination whose initial goal is to identify potential clinically-significant lesions suitable for targeted biopsy. The main advantages of MRI are its superior anatomic resolution and the lack of ionizing radiation. Recently, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System has been instituted as an international standard for unifying mpMRI results. The imaging sequences in mpMRI defined by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 includes: T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, derived apparent-diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MRI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. The use of mpMRI prior to starting active surveillance could prevent those with missed, high-grade lesions from going on active surveillance, and reassure those with minimal disease who may be hesitant to take part in active surveillance. Although larger validation studies are still necessary, preliminary results suggest mpMRI has a role in selecting patients for active surveillance. Less certain is the role of mpMRI in monitoring patients on active surveillance, as data on this will take a long time to mature. The biggest obstacles to routine use of prostate MRI are quality control, cost, reproducibility, and access. Nevertheless, there is great a potential for mpMRI to improve outcomes and quality of treatment. The major roles of MRI will continue to expand and its emerging use in standard of care approaches becomes more clearly defined and supported by increasing levels of data.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Quality of care and economic considerations of active surveillance of men with prostate cancer

The current health care climate mandates the delivery of high-value care for patients considering active surveillance for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer. Value is defined by increasing benefits (e.g., quality) for acceptable costs. This review discusses quality of care considerations for men contemplating active surveillance, and highlights cost implications at the patient, health-system, and societal level related to pursuit of non-interventional management of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. In general, most quality measures are focused on prostate cancer care in general, rather that active surveillance patients specifically. However, most prostate cancer quality measures are pertinent to men seeking close observation of their prostate tumors with active surveillance. These include accurate documentation of clinical stage, informed discussion of all treatment options, and appropriate use of imaging for less-aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, interventions that may help improve the quality of care for active surveillance patients are reviewed (e.g., quality collaboratives, judicious antibiotic use, etc.). Finally, the potential economic impact and benefits of broad acceptance of active surveillance strategies are highlighted.

Natural history of prostatic lesions on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

INTRODUCTION

The natural history of prostatic lesions identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is largely unknown. We aimed to describe changes observed over time on serial MRI.

METHODS

All patients with ≥2 MRI studies between 2008 and 2015 at our institution were identified. MRI progression was defined as an increase in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS; version 2) or size of existing lesions, or the appearance of a new lesion PIRADS ≥4. Patients on active surveillance (AS) were analyzed for correlation of MRI progression to biopsy reclassification.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients (54 on AS and 29 for diagnostic purposes) underwent serial MRI, with a mean interval of 1.9 years between scans. At baseline, 115 lesions (66 index, 49 non-index) were identified. Index lesions were more likely than non-index lesions to increase in size ≥2 mm (36.2 vs. 7.3 %; p=0.002). Overall progression was more likely to be seen among the index cohort (34.8 vs. 7.6%; p<0.001). New lesions with PI-RADS ≥4 were seen on second imaging in 13 (16.5%) men, and became the index lesion in 29 cases (34.9%). Eighteen men on AS showed evidence of MRI progression (five with new lesions, 13 with progression of a previous lesion). Biopsy reclassification was present in three men (16.7%) with and seven men without MRI progression (19.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall changes in size and PI-RADS scores of index lesions on MRI were small. New lesions were common, but usually did not alter management.

Imaging for the selection and monitoring of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

Traditional prostate imaging is fairly limited, and only a few imaging modalities have been used for this purpose. Until today, grey scale ultrasound was the most widely used method for the characterization of the prostatic gland, however its limitations for prostate cancer (PCa) detection are well known and hence ultrasound is primarily used to localize the prostate and facilitate template prostate biopsies. In the past decade, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as a promising tool for the detection of PCa. Evidence has shown the value of mpMRI in the active surveillance (AS) population, given its ability to detect more aggressive disease, with data building up and supporting its use for the selection of patients suitable for surveillance. Additionally, mpMRI targeted biopsies have shown an improved detection rate of aggressive PCa when compared to regular transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsies. Current data supports the use of mpMRI in patients considered for AS for reclassification purposes; with a negative mpMRI indicating a decreased risk of reclassification. However, a percentage of patients with negative imaging or low suspicion lesions can experience reclassification, highlighting the importance of repeat confirmatory biopsy regardless of mpMRI findings. At present, no robust data is available to recommend the substitution of regular biopsies with mpMRI in the follow-up of patients on AS and efforts are being made to determine the role of integrating genomic markers with imaging with the objective of minimizing the need of biopsies during the follow up period.

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.