Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance

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.

Prostate cancer risk assessment and avoidance of prostate biopsies using fully automatic deep learning in prostate MRI: comparison to PI-RADS and integration with clinical data in nomograms

OBJECTIVES

Risk calculators (RCs) improve patient selection for prostate biopsy with clinical/demographic information, recently with prostate MRI using the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS). Fully-automated deep learning (DL) analyzes MRI data independently, and has been shown to be on par with clinical radiologists, but has yet to be incorporated into RCs. The goal of this study is to re-assess the diagnostic quality of RCs, the impact of replacing PI-RADS with DL predictions, and potential performance gains by adding DL besides PI-RADS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One thousand six hundred twenty-seven consecutive examinations from 2014 to 2021 were included in this retrospective single-center study, including 517 exams withheld for RC testing. Board-certified radiologists assessed PI-RADS during clinical routine, then systematic and MRI/Ultrasound-fusion biopsies provided histopathological ground truth for significant prostate cancer (sPC). nnUNet-based DL ensembles were trained on biparametric MRI predicting the presence of sPC lesions (UNet-probability) and a PI-RADS-analogous five-point scale (UNet-Likert). Previously published RCs were validated as is; with PI-RADS substituted by UNet-Likert (UNet-Likert-substituted RC); and with both UNet-probability and PI-RADS (UNet-probability-extended RC). Together with a newly fitted RC using clinical data, PI-RADS and UNet-probability, existing RCs were compared by receiver-operating characteristics, calibration, and decision-curve analysis.

RESULTS

Diagnostic performance remained stable for UNet-Likert-substituted RCs. DL contained complementary diagnostic information to PI-RADS. The newly-fitted RC spared 49% [252/517] of biopsies while maintaining the negative predictive value (94%), compared to PI-RADS ≥ 4 cut-off which spared 37% [190/517] (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating DL as an independent diagnostic marker for RCs can improve patient stratification before biopsy, as there is complementary information in DL features and clinical PI-RADS assessment.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

For patients with positive prostate screening results, a comprehensive diagnostic workup, including prostate MRI, DL analysis, and individual classification using nomograms can identify patients with minimal prostate cancer risk, as they benefit less from the more invasive biopsy procedure.

KEY POINTS

The current MRI-based nomograms result in many negative prostate biopsies. The addition of DL to nomograms with clinical data and PI-RADS improves patient stratification before biopsy. Fully automatic DL can be substituted for PI-RADS without sacrificing the quality of nomogram predictions. Prostate nomograms show cancer detection ability comparable to previous validation studies while being suitable for the addition of DL analysis.

Transperineal template saturation and conventional biopsy for stage prediction in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of risk calculators (RCs) predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) and extraprostatic extension (EPE) in men undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-fusion template saturation biopsy (TTSB) and conventional systematic TRUS-guided biopsy (SB).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The RCs were tested in a consecutive cohort of 645 men undergoing radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection between 2005 and 2019. TTSB was performed in 230 (35.7%) and SB in 415 (64.3%) men. Risk of LNI and EPE was calculated using the available RCs. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness stratified by different biopsy techniques were assessed.

RESULTS

Lymph node invasion was observed in 23 (10%) and EPE in 73 (31.8%) of cases with TTSB and 53 (12.8%) and 158 (38%) with SB, respectively. RCs showed an excellent discrimination and acceptable calibration for prediction of LNI based on TTSB (area under the curve [AUC]/risk estimation: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC]-RC 0.79/-4%, Briganti (2012)-RC 0.82/-4%, Gandaglia-RC 0.81/+6%). These were comparable in SB (MSKCC-RC 0.78/+2%; Briganti (2012)-RC 0.77/-3%). Decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed a net benefit at threshold probabilities between 3% and 6% when TTSB was used. For prediction of EPE based on TTSB an inferior discrimination and variable calibration were observed (AUC/risk estimation: MSKCC-RC 0.71/+8% and Martini (2018)-RC 0.69/+2%) achieving a net benefit on DCA only at risk thresholds of >17%. Performance of RCs for prediction of LNI and EPE based on SB showed comparable results with a better performance in the DCA for LNI (risk thresholds 1-2%) and poorer performance for EPE (risk threshold >20%). This study is limited by its retrospective single-institution design.

CONCLUSIONS

The potentially more accurate grading ability of TTSB did not result in improved performance of preoperative RCs. Prediction tools for LNI proved clinical usefulness while RCs for EPE did not.

[Prostate cancer-multiparametric MRI and alternative approaches in intervention and therapy planning]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has gained importance and plays a crucial role in both personalized diagnostics and increasingly in the treatment planning for patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present established and innovative applications of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, it will explore alternative approaches and compare them in a comprehensive manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review on the application of mpMRI for biopsy and therapy planning was conducted.

RESULTS

The integration of modern imaging techniques, especially mpMRI, into the diagnostic algorithm has revolutionized prostate cancer diagnosis. MRI and MRI-guided biopsy detect more significant prostate cancer, with the potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies and the diagnosis of clinically insignificant carcinomas. In addition, MRI provides crucial information for risk stratification and treatment planning in prostate cancer patients, both before radical prostatectomy and during active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MRI offers significant added value for the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer. The advancement of MRI analysis, such as the implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms, holds the potential for further enhancing imaging diagnostics.

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.

Imaging of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in males in Germany. The conventional strategy for its primary detection, i.e., systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in men who have elevated PSA levels and/or positive findings on digital rectal examination, fails to reveal all cases. The same is true of the use of conventional computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and skeletal scintigraphy for the early detection of recurrences and distant metastases.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search, including the German clinical practice guideline on prostate cancer and systematic review articles.

RESULTS

Prospective multicenter trials have shown that the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer is markedly improved with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy (TRUS = transrectal ultrasonography), compared to conventional systematic biopsy. A recent Cochrane review showed that the rate of overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer was reduced with mpMRI and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy compared with conventional systematic biopsy (95/1000 vs. 139/1000), and that clinically significant prostate cancer was more reliably detected (sensitivity 72% vs. 63%), albeit with slightly lower specificity (96% vs. 100%). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) hybrid imaging improves the detection of lymphogenic and bony metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA hybrid imaging is most commonly used to detect biochemical recurrences. A meta-analysis showed that the detection rate depends on the PSA concentration: 74.1% overall, 33.7% with PSA <0.2 ng/mL, and 91.7% with PSA ≥ 2.0 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

The appropriate use of mpMRI and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy improves the initial detection of prostate cancer as well as the assessment of the prognosis. PSMA hybrid imaging is useful for the staging of high-risk patients and for the detection of recurrences. These methods are now recommended in the German clinical practice guideline on prostate cancer as well as in guidelines from other countries.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the selection and follow-up of patients undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. An European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) review

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, active surveillance (AS) has gained popularity as a safe and reasonable option for patients with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the latest information regarding the use of mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance (AS) for the management of prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed-based, English literature search was conducted through February 2020. We selected the most relevant original articles, meta-analyses and systematic reviews that could provide important information.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The great importance of mpMRI of the prostate in the setting of PCa diagnosis is its ability to visualize primarily high-grade cancerous lesions potentially missed on systematic biopsies. In several studies, mpMRI has shown an improved performance over clinically based models for identifying candidates which will benefit the most from AS. Although data on prostate mpMRI during follow-up of men under AS is sparse, it holds the probability to improve significantly AS programs by a more precise selection of optimal candidates, a more accurate identification of disease progression and a reduction in number of biopsies. The goal of reassessment of patients undergoing AS is to find the most effective moment to change attitude to active treatment.

CONCLUSION

The value of mpMRI has been recognized due to its high negative predictive value (NPV) for lesion upgrading in low-risk PCa patients. The improvement in imaging detection, and precise diagnosis with mpMRI could reduce misclassifications at initial diagnosis and during follow-up, reducing the number of biopsies.

Comparison of TRUS and combined MRI-targeted plus systematic prostate biopsy for the concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy in histologic grading of MRI/US image fusion biopsy by comparing conventional 12-core TRUS-Bx at radical prostatectomy specimens (RP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed prostate cancer (127 with combination of both targeted biopsy (TBx) plus systematic biopsies (SBx) and separate patient cohort of 330 conventional TRUS-Bx without mpMRI) with a PSA level of <20 ng/mL prior to RP were included. The primary end point was the grade group concordance between biopsy and RP pathology according to biopsy technique.

RESULTS

Clinically significant prostate cancer detection was 51.2% for TRUS-Bx, 49.5% for SBx, 67% for TBx and 75.7% for TBx + SBx. Upgrading and downgrading of at least one Gleason Grade Group (GGG) was recorded in 43.3%/ 6.7% patients of the TRUS-Bx and in 20.5%/ 22% of the TBX + SBx group, respectively (all P < .001). Concordance level was detected to be significantly higher for ISUP 1 in combined TBx + SBx method compared to conventional TRUS-Bx (61.3% vs 37.9%, P = .014). In ISUP 1 exclusively, significant upgrading was seen in TRUS-Bx (62.1%) when compared to TBx (41.4%) and TBx + SBx (38.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-targeted biopsies detected more significant PCa than TRUS-Bx but, superiority in significant cancer detection appears as a result of inadvertant selective sampling of small higher grade areas. Within an otherwise low grade cancer and does not reflect accurate GGG final surgical pathology. TBx + SBx has the greatest concordance in ISUP Grade 1 with less upgrading which is utmost important for active surveillance.

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.

Combining clinical and MRI data to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions and reduce excessive biopsy

Background

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS V2) 3 category lesions are of intermediate status with an equivocal risk of presenting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). How to avoid excessive biopsies while improving the csPCa detection rate in these lesions has always been a clinical problem that needed to be solved. The purpose of this study is to explore the csPCa diagnostic value of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data for peripheral and transitional zone (PZ and TZ, respectively) PI-RADS 3 lesions to aid in clinical decision-making and reduce excessive biopsies.

Methods

From March 2016 to October 2018, a total of 629 men who underwent a prostate MRI and subsequently biopsy were enrolled. Two radiologists (with 3 and 7 years of experience, respectively) independently reviewed and scored all images using the PI-RADS V2 scoring criteria. Clinical and MRI data of men with PI-RADS 3 index lesions were collected by another radiologist. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors of csPCa.

Results

In a subset of 121 men with 121 PI-RADS 3 index lesions, 25.6% of the lesions (31/121) were PCa (Gleason score ≥6), and 11.6% (14/121) were csPCa (Gleason score ≥7). Further, 44.6% of lesions (54/121) were located in the PZ and 55.4% (67/121) in the TZ. For PZ lesions, 18.5% of the lesions (10/54) were csPCa. Prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (P=0.024) and age (P=0.026) were independent risk factors for csPCa in the multivariate logistic analysis. The combination of PSAD and age yielded an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.816 for predicting csPCa. If biopsy had been restricted to patients with a PSAD ≥0.15 ng/mL² or an age >68 years, 24.1% (13/54) of patients would have avoided biopsy but only 1 (10%) csPCa would have been missed, with a sensitivity of 80.0% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 92.3%. For TZ lesions, only 6.0% of the lesions (4/67) were csPCa. The PSA and PSAD values in the PI-RADS 3 TZ lesions were higher in the csPCa group (45.07 and 0.47 ng/mL², respectively) than in the non-csPCa group (10.03 and 0.17 ng/mL², respectively).

Conclusions

CsPCa was detected at a relatively high rate in PI-RADS 3 PZ lesions. Combining PSAD and age could help to reduce excessive biopsies of such lesions. CsPCa is unlikely to be detected in PI-RADS 3 TZ lesions; thus, active surveillance may be an optimal choice for these lesions, especially among patients without high-risk factors.

Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Digital rectal examination (DRE) is part of the clinical evaluation of men on active surveillance (AS). The purpose of the present study is to analyze the value of DRE as a predictor of upgrading in a population of men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with AS.

METHODS

We used the prostate biopsy (PBx) database from an academic center, including PBx from 2006-2018, and identified 2029 confirmatory biopsies (CxPBx) of men treated with AS, of which 726 men had both diagnostic (initial) and CxPBx information available. We did a descriptive analysis and evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of DRE for the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Multivariable regression analysis was done to identify predictors of csPCa. The primary outcome was to evaluate DRE as a predictor of the presence of csPCa at CxPBx.

RESULTS

Among the 2029 patients with a CxPBx, 75% had PCa, and of these, 30.3% had upgrading to International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) grade ≥2. Thirteen percent of men had a suspicious DRE (done by their treating physician). Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of DRE to detect csPCa were best with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <4 ng/ml (27%, 88%, 31%, and 87%, respectively). A suspicious DRE at CxPBx, particularly if the DRE at diagnosis was negative, was a predictor of csPCa (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, p=0.038). The main limitation of our study is the retrospective design and the lack of magnetic resonance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe DRE should still be used as part of AS and can predict the presence of csPCa, even with low PSA values. A suspicious nodule on DRE represents a higher risk of upgrading and should prompt further assessment.

MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy in prostate cancer detection: Are randomized clinical trials reproducible in everyday clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion-targeted biopsies (TB) in men with primary and repeated biopsies comparing the cancer detection rate (CDR) of random biopsies (RB) + TB versus only TB.

METHODS:

The present study is a real-life study on patients with primary and prior negative prostate biopsies with suspicious PCa. A total of 130 men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >2.5 ng/dL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in the study and subjected to mpMRI. Patients with >2 previous biopsies and/or with ⩾3 suspected lesions on MRI and/or prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PIRADS) value ⩾4 (n:30 pts) were subjected only to TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI. All the other patients (n:70 pts) were subjected to standard random laterally directed 10-core plus TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI.

RESULTS:

The overall CDR was 53% (53/100). In relation to PIRADS score, the overall CDR was 0, 40% (12/30), 56.83% (29/51), and 84% (11/13) for PIRADS 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. According to biopsy modality, CDR for RB + TB was 50% (35/70) and CDR for TB was 60% (18/30) with a p-value of 0.3632.

DISCUSSION:

MRI-US fusion biopsy is associated with a high CDR of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). MRI-US fusion biopsy could be a reasonable approach in patients with previous negative biopsy and high PIRADS score on MRI, to ensure a high CDR of csPCa and to reduce the diagnosis of clinically insignificant tumors.

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus combined magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion and systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection in routine clinical practice

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (US-PB) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-PB) in men undergoing primary or repeated biopsies.

METHODS

A population of 2,200 patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >4.0 ng/ dL and/or an abnormal rectal examination was divided into two groups. All patients underwent US-PB (n=1,021) or MRI-PB (n=1,179) between April 2015 and April 2019. Population demographics, including age, PSA level, digital rectal examination results, prostate volume, number of previous negative biopsies, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (V2) score, and biopsy results, were acquired and compared with respect to these variables. Univariate regression analysis of the risk factors for a higher Gleason score (GS) was performed.

RESULTS

The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 23.8% (243 of 1,021) in the US-PB group and 31.3% (399 of 1,179) in the MRI-PB group. Of those, 225 patients (22.0%) in the US-PB group and 374 patients (31.7%) in the MRI-PB group had clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The patients with csPCa in the MRI-PB group included 10 (40%), 50 (62.5%), 184 (94.8%), and 32 (94.1%) patients with PI-RADS V2 scores of 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Of the patients with csPCa, 155 (91.7%) in the US-PB group were diagnosed on the basis of the primary biopsy, compared to 308 (94.4%) in the MRI-PB group. We found the PI-RADS V2 score to be the best predictor of a higher GS.

CONCLUSION

MRI-PB showed a high CDR for csPCa. MRI-PB could be a reasonable approach in patients with high PI-RADS V2 scores at primary biopsy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

[Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects]

Prostate carcinoma is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Histological confirmation by biopsy is an obligatory part of the diagnostic approach. The main problem of the 10-12-fold transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, which has so far been regarded as the gold standard, is the underdiagnosis of clinically significant cancer. MRI-based procedures, so-called fusion biopsies, have shown superior results when compared to conventional biopsies. There are three different approaches (cognitive and software-based MRI/TRUS fusion and in-bore biopsy) with comparable detection rates but differences in the technical aspects and time involvement. In order to reduce fusion errors, targeted biopsies should consist of multiple cores. There is currently no clear preference for the access pathway (transrectal or transperineal), but clinical parameters such as infection risk or location of the tumor can influence the decision. While the German S3 guideline considers MRI prior to primary biopsy to be optional, the 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines already recommend MRI prior to biopsy for all patients. The combination of MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy offers the highest detection rates with the disadvantage that more low-risk tumors are diagnosed. Both the patient and the urologist benefit from an improved informative value of the biopsy when deciding on active surveillance as well as when planning invasive therapies.

[Focal therapy for prostate cancer]

Focal therapy (FT) should have the same oncological efficacy as whole gland therapy with fewer side effects. Precise diagnosis with PI-RADS v2 standard multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fusion or template biopsy is a basic prerequisite. Numerous ablation technologies and treatment strategies have been developed, including hemiablation. Treatment success is still inconsistently defined. The only large randomized study available compares one of the procedures to standard therapy. Therefore, even in 2019, FT must still be regarded as experimental and should only be carried out within the context of studies. Follow-up should correspond to active surveillance (AS), including MRI and fusion biopsy. Advantages and disadvantages of each ablation technique should be taken into consideration as well as the suitability of certain regions in the gland. Ideally, an individualized "à la carte" selection of various procedures should be offered. FT is well suited for patients with highly localized cancers at intermediate risk if standard therapies or AS is not possible or has been refused.

Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification

Biomarkers provide objective data to guide clinicians in disease management. Prostate-specific antigen serves as a biomarker for screening of prostate cancer but has come under scrutiny for detection of clinically indolent disease. Multiple imaging techniques demonstrate promising results for diagnosing, staging, and determining definitive management of prostate cancer. One such modality, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), detects more clinically significant disease while missing lower volume and clinically insignificant disease. It also provides valuable information regarding tumor characteristics such as location and extraprostatic extension to guide surgical planning. Information from mpMRI may also help patients avoid unnecessary biopsies in the future. It can also be incorporated into targeted biopsies as well as following patients on active surveillance. Other novel techniques have also been developed to detect metastatic disease with advantages over traditional computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which primarily rely on defined size criteria. These new techniques take advantage of underlying biological changes in prostate cancer tissue to identify metastatic disease. The purpose of this review is to present literature on imaging as a personalized biomarker for prostate cancer risk stratification.

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.

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.

Accuracy of the magnetic resonance imaging pathway in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent targeted biopsy ('MRI pathway') have been widely adopted in routine clinical practice, it is still a common practice to perform systematic biopsy concurrently, because the accuracy of the MRI pathway is yet to be fully defined. This systematic review of the literature assessed the sensitivity of the MRI pathway for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched up to May 2017 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement for studies assessing the accuracy of MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) compared to a reference standard which consisted of both MRGB and systematic biopsy with at least 20-cores. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer defined as Gleason ≥7 disease.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. Overall, studies were assessed to be of low quality with inadequate blinding of personnel, which could introduce performance and detection bias. The calculated summary sensitivity of the MRI pathway was 78.3% [95%CI 75.0-81.4%]. There was moderate heterogeneity between the included studies (I² = 36%). Subgroup analysis was performed based on clinical setting, the strength of MRI magnet and mode of image fusion as factors but no interaction was identified between any of the subgroups. No publication bias was identified.

CONCLUSION

The MRI pathway cannot yet be solely relied upon to diagnose clinically significant disease and hence additional systematic sampling should still be performed during the biopsy procedure.

Twelve-month prostate volume reduction after MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of the prostate

PURPOSE

To quantitatively assess 12-month prostate volume (PV) reduction based on T2-weighted MRI and immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI non-perfused volume (NPV), and to compare measurements with predictions of acute and delayed ablation volumes based on MR-thermometry (MR-t), in a central radiology review of the Phase I clinical trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) in patients with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment day MRI and 12-month follow-up MRI and biopsy were available for central radiology review in 29 of 30 patients from the published institutional review board-approved, prospective, multi-centre, single-arm Phase I clinical trial of TULSA. Viable PV at 12 months was measured as the remaining PV on T2-weighted MRI, less 12-month NPV, scaled by the fraction of fibrosis in 12-month biopsy cores. Reduction of viable PV was compared to predictions based on the fraction of the prostate covered by the MR-t derived acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV, 55°C isotherm), delayed thermal ablation volume (DTAV, 240 cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C thermal dose isocontour) and treatment-day NPV. We also report linear and volumetric comparisons between metrics.

RESULTS

After TULSA, the median 12-month reduction in viable PV was 88%. DTAV predicted a reduction of 90%. Treatment day NPV predicted only 53% volume reduction, and underestimated ATAV and DTAV by 36% and 51%.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative volumetry of the TULSA phase I MR and biopsy data identifies DTAV (240 CEM43 thermal dose boundary) as a useful predictor of viable prostate tissue reduction at 12 months. Immediate post-treatment NPV underestimates tissue ablation.

KEY POINTS

• MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) achieved an 88% reduction of viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months, in excellent agreement with expectation from thermal dose calculations. • Non-perfused volume on immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI represents only 64% of the acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV), and reports only 60% (53% instead of 88% achieved) of the reduction in viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months. • MR-thermometry-based predictions of 12-month prostate volume reduction based on 240 cumulative equivalent minute thermal dose volume are in excellent agreement with reduction in viable prostate tissue volume measured on pre- and 12-month post-treatment T2w-MRI.

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.

[Multiparametric MRI of the prostate : Important radiological findings for urologists]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

High prevalence of prostate cancer with multifocality and biological heterogeneity. Insufficient conventional urological diagnostics. Discrimination between significant and insignificant cancer needed.

STANDARD DIAGNOSTIC METHODS

Digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum level, systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) including T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS), MR-targeted biopsy, most frequently MR/TRUS image fusion biopsy.

FINDINGS AND PERFORMANCE

Prostate cancer is characterized by low signal intensity on T2w MRI, restricted water diffusion and pronounced and early uptake of contrast enhancement. Sensitivity and specificity according to the current literature are ca. 80% and 90%, respectively.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In cases of suspected prostate cancer, most accurate are mpMRI according to PIRADS and in cases of positive findings, MRI-targeted biopsy, most frequently as MRI/TRUS image fusion biopsy.

Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease

Background

The fear of undergrading prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have led to strict criteria for monitoring, which have resulted in good long-term cancer-specific survival, proving the safety of this approach. Reducing undergrading, MRI-targeted biopsies are increasingly used in men with low-risk disease despite their undefined role yet. The objective of this study is to investigate the rate of upgrading using MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk disease on AS, stratified on the basis of PI-RADS and PSA-density, with the aim to reduce potential unnecessary repeat biopsy procedures.

Methods

A total of 331 men were prospectively enrolled following the MRI-PRIAS protocol. MR imaging was according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) guidelines. Suspicious MRI lesions (PI-RADS 3–5) were additionally targeted by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies. Outcome measure was upgrading to Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 with MRI-targeted biopsies, stratified for PI-RADS and PSA-density.

Results

In total, 25% (82/331) of men on AS showed upgrading from GS 3+3. Only 3% (11/331) was upgraded to GS ≥8. In 60% (198/331) a suspicious MRI lesion was identified, but in only 41% (82/198) of men upgrading was confirmed. PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 categorized index lesions, showed upgrading in 30%, 34% and 66% of men, respectively. Stratification to PI-RADS 4–5, instead of PI-RADS 3–5, would have missed a small number of high volume Gleason 4 PCa in PI-RADS 3 category. However, further stratification into PI-RADS 3 lesions and PSA-density <0.15 ng/mL² could result in a safe targeted biopsy reduction of 36% in this category, without missing any upgrades.

Conclusions

Stratification with the combination of PI-RADS and PSA-density may reduce unnecessary additional MRI biopsy testing. Overall, the high rate of detected upgrading in men on AS may result in an unintended tightening of continuing in AS. Since patients, included under current AS criteria showed extremely favorable outcome, there might be no need to further restrict continuing on AS with MRI and targeted biopsies.

MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?

This review focuses on indeterminate lesions on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), assigned as PI-RADS category 3. The prevalence of PI-RADS 3 index lesion in the diagnostic work-up is significant, varying between one in three (32%) to one in five (22%) men, depending on patient cohort of first biopsies, previously negative biopsies, and active surveillance biopsies. A management strategy must be developed for this group of men with an indeterminate suspicion of having clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Currently available data show that the actual prevalence of csPCa after targeted biopsy in PI-RADS 3 lesions vary between patients groups from one in five (21%) to one in six (16%), depending on previous biopsy status. Although this prevalence is lower in comparison to PI-RADS 4 and PI-RADS 5 lesions, still a considerable proportion of men harbor significant disease. Men with such a PI-RADS 3 lesion should therefore be adequately managed. In general, the clinical approach of using a threshold of PI-RADS ≥4 instead of PI-RADS ≥3 to select MRI for targeted biopsies is not supported by data from our explorative literature search using current definitions of csPCa. A possible adaptation to the threshold of PI-RADS ≥4 in combination with other clinical markers could be considered within an active surveillance protocol, where the balance between the individual risk of missing csPCa and the constant process of repeating prostate biopsies is crucial. In the future, improvements in MR imaging and interpretation, combined with molecular biomarkers and multivariate risk models will all be employed in prostate cancer detection and monitoring. These combinations will aid decision-making in challenging circumstances, such as unclear and diagnostic equivocal results for csPCa at early detection.

MR Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening and Active Surveillance

The current prostate cancer management paradigm has been criticized in recent years for contributing to the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of the disease. Active surveillance is an avenue by which to reduce overtreatment, but patient selection and monitoring remain a challenge. The use of prostate MR imaging has been growing in recent years and has been incorporated into prostate cancer screening and patient selection and monitoring for active surveillance. This review article discusses the current evidence for the use of MR imaging in each of those settings.

3D T2-weighted imaging to shorten multiparametric prostate MRI protocols

Objectives

To determine whether 3D acquisitions provide equivalent image quality, lesion delineation quality and PI-RADS v2 performance compared to 2D acquisitions in T2-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T.

Methods

This IRB-approved, prospective study included 150 consecutive patients (mean age 63.7 years, 35–84 years; mean PSA 7.2 ng/ml, 0.4–31.1 ng/ml). Two uroradiologists (R1, R2) independently rated image quality and lesion delineation quality using a five-point ordinal scale and assigned a PI-RADS score for 2D and 3D T2-weighted image data sets. Data were compared using visual grading characteristics (VGC) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC)/area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

Results

Image quality was similarly good to excellent for 2D T2w (mean score R1, 4.3 ± 0.81; R2, 4.7 ± 0.83) and 3D T2w (mean score R1, 4.3 ± 0.82; R2, 4.7 ± 0.69), p = 0.269. Lesion delineation was rated good to excellent for 2D (mean score R1, 4.16 ± 0.81; R2, 4.19 ± 0.92) and 3D T2w (R1, 4.19 ± 0.94; R2, 4.27 ± 0.94) without significant differences (p = 0.785). ROC analysis showed an equivalent performance for 2D (AUC 0.580–0.623) and 3D (AUC 0.576–0.629) T2w (p > 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

Three-dimensional acquisitions demonstrated equivalent image and lesion delineation quality, and PI-RADS v2 performance, compared to 2D in T2-weighted imaging of the prostate. Three-dimensional T2-weighted imaging could be used to considerably shorten prostate MRI protocols in clinical practice.

Key points

• 3D shows equivalent image quality and lesion delineation compared to 2D T2w.

• 3D T2w and 2D T2w image acquisition demonstrated comparable diagnostic performance.

• Using a single 3D T2w acquisition may shorten the protocol by 40%.

• Combined with short DCE, multiparametric protocols of 10 min are feasible.

Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a widely adopted strategy to monitor men with low-risk, localized prostate cancer (PCa). Current AS inclusion criteria may misclassify as many as one in four patients. The advent of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and novel PCa biomarkers may offer improved risk stratification. We performed a review of recently published literature to characterize emerging evidence in support of these novel modalities.

Methods

An English literature search was conducted on PubMed for available original investigations on localized PCa, AS, imaging, and biomarkers published within the past 3 years. Our Boolean criteria included the following terms: PCa, AS, imaging, biomarker, genetic, genomic, prospective, retrospective, and comparative. The bibliographies and diagnostic modalities of the identified studies were used to expand our search.

Results

Our review identified 222 original studies. Our expanded search yielded 244 studies. Among these, 70 met our inclusion criteria. Evidence suggests mpMRI offers improved detection of clinically significant PCa, and MRI-fusion technology enhances the sensitivity of surveillance biopsies. Multiple studies demonstrate the promise of commercially available screening assays for prediction of AS failure, and several novel biomarkers show promise in this setting.

Conclusion

In the era of AS for men with low-risk PCa, improved strategies for proper stratification are needed. mpMRI has dramatically enhanced the detection of clinically significant PCa. The advent of novel biomarkers for prediction of aggressive disease and AS failure has shown some initial promise, but further validation is warranted.

Diffusion-weighted MRI treatment monitoring of primary hypofractionated proton and carbon ion prostate cancer irradiation using raster scan technique

PURPOSE

To investigate parametric changes in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) at multiple timepoints during and after completion of primary proton and carbon ion irradiation of prostate cancer (PCa) as compared with normal-appearing prostate parenchyma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all, 92 patients with histologically confirmed PCa received either proton or carbon ion hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT). All were prospectively evaluated with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI) at five timepoints: baseline, day 10 during therapy and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 18 months after treatment. Linear mixed models (LMM) were used to evaluate the effects of radiation, antihormonal therapy, time, and type of particle irradiation on manual ADC measurements. ADC differences related to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse according to PSA thresholds and to Vancouver rules and Phoenix criteria were examined using LMM and unpaired Student's t-test.

RESULTS

A measurable and continuous increase of tumor ADC measurements from baseline (1.194 × 10^-3 mm² /s) during (1.350 × 10^-3 mm² /s, day 10, P = 0.006) and after treatment (1.355/1.430/1.490 × 10^-3 mm² /s, week 6 / month 6 / month 18, P = 0.001/<0.001/<0.001) was found. ADC values of normal-appearing control tissue remained unchanged. Androgen deprivation (P ≥ 0.320), different PSA thresholds (P = 0.634), and PSA relapse criteria according to Vancouver rules (P ≥ 0.776) had no effect. A weak association between 18-month measurements and Phoenix criteria (P = 0.046) was found.

CONCLUSION

ADC parametric changes were distinct in tumor tissue, highlighting the ability of diffusion MRI to evaluate different aspects of the microscopic pathophysiology. Although promising, their use as noninvasive imaging biomarkers requires further validation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:850-860.

Optimizing safety and accuracy of prostate biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this article is to examine the safety of prostate biopsy and discuss the emerging role of MRI-ultrasound fusion technology in improving diagnostic accuracy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Men undergoing prostate biopsy frequently experience minor complications, including hematospermia, hematuria, and infection. Quinolone-resistant bacteria are a growing concern; thus, transperineal access or modification of antibiotic prophylaxis based on local antibiograms is now used to avoid infectious complications.Multiparametric MRI allows visualization of many prostate cancers, and by fusing MRI with real-time ultrasound, a biopsy needle can be directed by a urologist into suspicious regions of interest. Using this new method, detection of clinically significant prostate cancer has increased and the incidence of falsely negative biopsies has decreased.

SUMMARY

Prostate biopsy is generally a safe procedure, and with attention to local patterns of antibiotic resistance, infectious complications can be minimized. MRI-ultrasound fusion has significantly improved the accuracy of prostate biopsy, allowing tracking and targeting not previously possible.