DWI and PRECISE criteria in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: A multicentre preliminary experience of different ADC calculations

Development and validation of a nomogram incorporating multi-parametric MRI and hematological indicators for discriminating benign from malignant central prostatic nodules: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer poses a significant risk to men's health. In this study, a model for differentiating benign and malignant nodules in the central region of the prostate was constructed by combining multi-parametric MRI and hematological lab values.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the data acquired from Lianyungang First People's Hospital and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical College from January 2018 to December 2021. We included 310 MRI-confirmed prostatic nodule patients. The data were split into a training set (260 cases) and an external validation set (50 cases), with the latter exclusively from The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical College to test the model's generalizability. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified critical measurements for differentiating prostate cancer (PCa) from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which were then integrated into a nomogram model.

RESULTS

The key indicators determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis included apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), standard deviation (StDev), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and prostate specific antigen (PSA). The nomogram's performance, as indicated by the area under the curve (AUC), was 0.844 (95% CI: 0.811-0.938) in the training set and 0.818 (95% CI: 0.644-0.980) in the external validation set. Calibration and decision curves demonstrated that the nomogram was well-calibrated and could serve as an effective tool in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram model based on ADC, StDev, NLR and PSA may be helpful to identify PCa and BPH.

Diagnostic performance of ADC and ADCratio in MRI-based prostate cancer assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors influencing the diagnostic performance of the quantitative imaging biomarkers ADC and ADCratio in prostate cancer (PCa) detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline and Web of Science, for studies evaluating ADC values and ADCratio for PCa diagnosis, using the same patient cohorts and using histopathological references as ground truth. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, summary ROC curves and AUCs were calculated from constructed contingency data tables. Diagnostic performance (AUC) was quantitatively pooled using a bivariate mixed effects model. For identifying influencing factors, subgroup analysis, publication bias and heterogeneity assessment were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, involving 1038 patients and 1441 lesions, were included. For ADC, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-85%) and 78% (95% CI: 70-85%), respectively. For ADCratio pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-84%) and 80% (95% CI: 71-87%). Summary ROC analysis revealed AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), respectively. Meta-regression showed heterogeneity between both imaging biomarkers. Subgroup analysis showed that ADCratio improved diagnostic performance in comparison to ADC when including both peripheral and transitional zone lesions (AUC: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.84-0.90] and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.85], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both ADC and ADCratio imaging biomarkers showed good and comparable diagnostic performance in PCa diagnosis. However, ADCratio shows better diagnostic performance than ADC in diagnosing transition zone cancers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In quantitative MRI-based PCa diagnosis, the imaging biomarker ADCratio is useful in challenging MRI readings of lesions. Understanding the performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers better can aid diagnostic MRI protocols, enhancing the precision of PCa assessments.

KEY POINTS

MRI diffusion-weighted imaging-based ADC and ADCratio have comparable diagnostic performance in PCa assessment. In contrast to ADC, the ADCratio improves diagnostic performance, when assessing whole gland lesions. Compared to ADCratio, the ADC demonstrates enhanced diagnostic performance when evaluating peripheral zone lesions.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

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

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

mpMRI Interpretation in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-An overview of the PRECISE score

Active surveillance (AS) is now included in all major guidelines for patients with low-risk PCa and selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa. Several studies have highlighted the potential benefit of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS and it has been adopted in some guidelines. However, uncertainty remains about whether serial mpMRI can help to safely reduce the number of required repeat biopsies under AS. In 2017, the European School of Oncology initiated the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) panel which proposed the PRECISE scoring system to assess the likelihood of radiological tumor progression on serial mpMRI. The PRECISE scoring system remains the only major system evaluated in multiple publications. In this review article, we discuss the current body of literature investigating the application of PRECISE as it is not as yet an established standard in mpMRI reporting. We delineate the strengths of PRECISE and its potential added value. Also, we underline potential weaknesses of the PRECISE scoring system, which might be tackled in future versions to further increase its value in AS.

Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

Serial changes in tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance with and without histopathological progression

OBJECTIVE

To analyse serial changes in MRI-derived tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS) with and without histopathological disease progression.

METHODS

This study included AS patients with biopsy-proven PCa with a minimum of two consecutive MR examinations and at least one repeat targeted biopsy. Tumour volumes, largest axial two-dimensional (2D) surface areas, and maximum diameters were measured on T2 weighted images (T2WI). ADC values were derived from the whole lesions, 2D areas, and small-volume regions of interest (ROIs) where tumours were most conspicuous. Areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated for combinations of T2WI and ADC parameters with optimal specificity and sensitivity.

RESULTS

60 patients (30 progressors and 30 non-progressors) were included. In progressors, T2WI-derived tumour volume, 2D surface area, and maximum tumour diameter had a median increase of +99.5%,+55.3%, and +21.7% compared to +29.2%,+8.1%, and +6.9% in non-progressors (p < 0.005 for all). Follow-up whole-volume and small-volume ROIs ADC values were significantly reduced in progressors (-11.7% and -9.5%) compared to non-progressors (-6.1% and -1.6%) (p < 0.05 for both). The combined AUC of a relative increase in maximum tumour diameter by 20% and reduction in small-volume ADC by 10% was 0.67.

CONCLUSION

AS patients show significant differences in tumour measurements and ADC values between those with and without histopathological disease progression.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This paper proposes specific clinical cut-offs for T2WI-derived maximum tumour diameter (+20%) and small-volume ADC (-10%) to predict histopathological PCa progression on AS and supplement subjective serial MRI assessment.

MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges

Purpose

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening, which relies on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, is a contentious topic that received negative attention due to the low sensitivity and specificity of PSA to detect clinically significant PCa. In this context, due to the higher sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), several trials investigate the feasibility of “MRI-only” screening approaches, and question if PSA testing may be replaced within prostate cancer screening programs.

Methods

This narrative review discusses the current literature and the outlook on the potential of MRI-based PCa screening.

Results

Several prospective randomized population-based trials are ongoing. Preliminary study results appear to favor the “MRI-only” approach. However, MRI-based PCa screening programs face a variety of obstacles that have yet to be fully addressed. These include the increased cost of MRI, lack of broad availability, differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation protocols, and lack of long-term impact on cancer-specific mortality. Partly, these issues are being addressed by shorter and simpler MRI approaches (5–20 min bi-parametric MRI), novel quality indicators (PI-QUAL) and the implementation of radiomics (deep learning, machine learning).

Conclusion

Although promising preliminary results were reported, MRI-based PCa screening still lack long-term data on crucial endpoints such as the impact of MRI screening on mortality. Furthermore, the issues of availability, cost-effectiveness, and differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation still need to be addressed.

Network Analysis Integrating microRNA Expression Profiling with MRI Biomarkers and Clinical Data for Prostate Cancer Early Detection: A Proof of Concept Study

The MRI of the prostate is the gold standard for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Nonetheless, MRI still misses around 11% of clinically significant disease. The aim was to comprehensively integrate tissue and circulating microRNA profiling, MRI biomarkers and clinical data to implement PCa early detection. In this prospective cohort study, 76 biopsy naïve patients underwent MRI and MRI directed biopsy. A sentinel sample of 15 patients was selected for a pilot molecular analysis. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis was applied to identify the microRNAs drivers of csPCa. MicroRNA-target gene interaction maps were constructed, and enrichment analysis performed. The ANOVA on ranks test and ROC analysis were performed for statistics. Disease status was associated with the underexpression of the miRNA profiled; a correlation was found with ADC (r = -0.51, p = 0.02) and normalized ADC values (r = -0.64, p = 0.002). The overexpression of miRNAs from plasma was associated with csPCa (r = 0.72; p = 0.02), and with PI-RADS assessment score (r = 0.73; p = 0.02); a linear correlation was found with biomarkers of diffusion and perfusion. Among the 800 profiled microRNA, eleven were identified as correlating with PCa, among which miR-548a-3p, miR-138-5p and miR-520d-3p were confirmed using the RT-qPCR approach on an additional cohort of ten subjects. ROC analysis showed an accuracy of >90%. Provided an additional validation set of the identified miRNAs on a larger cohort, we propose a diagnostic paradigm shift that sees molecular data and MRI biomarkers as the prebiopsy triage of patients at risk for PCa. This approach will allow for accurate patient allocation to biopsy, and for stratification into risk group categories, reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.

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.

Imaging quality and prostate MR: it is time to improve

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate. However, the rapid diffusion of this technique has inevitably led to variability in scan quality among centres across the UK and the world. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of this technique for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and results in clinicians losing confidence in the technique.Two expert panels, one from the UK and one from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)/EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI), have stressed the importance to establish quality criteria for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate. A first attempt to address this issue has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, which assesses the mpMRI quality against a set of objective criteria (PI-RADS guidelines) together with criteria obtained from the image.PI-QUAL represents the first step towards the standardisation of a scoring system to assess the quality of prostate mpMRI prior to reporting and allows clinicians to have more confidence in using the scan to determine patient care. Further refinements after robust consensus among experts at an international level need to be agreed before its widespread adoption in the clinical setting.

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.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines allow active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients but do not provide comprehensive recommendations for selection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for active surveillance in intermediate- and low-risk groups.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance using 3 literature search engines (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus) over the past 10 years. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who remain under surveillance. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and metastasis-free survival. For articles including both low- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing active surveillance, comparisons between the two groups were made.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who remained on active surveillance was comparable between the low- and intermediate-risk groups after 10 and 15 years' follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.14; and OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.13). Cancer-specific survival was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69) and 15 years (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.2-0.58). The overall survival rate showed no statistical difference at 5 years' follow-up (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57) but was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53). Metastases-free survival did not significantly differ after 5 years (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.2-1.53) and was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77).

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance could be offered to patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, they should be informed of the need for regular monitoring and the possibility of discontinuation as a result of a higher rate of progression. Available data indicate that 5-year survival rates between intermediate- and low-risk patients do not differ; 10-year survival rates are worse. To assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of active surveillance, it is necessary to develop unified algorithms for patient selection and management, and to prospectively conduct studies with long-term surveillance.

Quantitative Prostate MRI

Prostate MRI is reported in clinical practice using the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS). PI-RADS aims to standardize, as much as possible, the acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and ultimately the performance of prostate MRI. PI-RADS relies upon mainly subjective analysis of MR imaging findings, with very few incorporated quantitative features. The shortcomings of PI-RADS are mainly: low-to-moderate interobserver agreement and modest accuracy for detection of clinically significant tumors in the transition zone. The use of a more quantitative analysis of prostate MR imaging findings is therefore of interest. Quantitative MR imaging features including: tumor size and volume, tumor length of capsular contact, tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics, tumor T₁ and T₂ relaxation times, tumor shape, and texture analyses have all shown value for improving characterization of observations detected on prostate MRI and for differentiating between tumors by their pathological grade and stage. Quantitative analysis may therefore improve diagnostic accuracy for detection of cancer and could be a noninvasive means to predict patient prognosis and guide management. Since quantitative analysis of prostate MRI is less dependent on an individual users' assessment, it could also improve interobserver agreement. Semi- and fully automated analysis of quantitative (radiomic) MRI features using artificial neural networks represent the next step in quantitative prostate MRI and are now being actively studied. Validation, through high-quality multicenter studies assessing diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer detection, in the domain of quantitative prostate MRI is needed. This article reviews advances in quantitative prostate MRI, highlighting the strengths and limitations of existing and emerging techniques, as well as discussing opportunities and challenges for evaluation of prostate MRI in clinical practice when using quantitative assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.