Performance and inter-observer variability of prostate MRI (PI-RADS version 2) outside high-volume centres

Clinical Trial Protocol for PRIMARY2: A Multicentre, Phase 3, Randomised Controlled Trial Investigating the Additive Diagnostic Value of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Men with Negative or Equivocal Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has an established role for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). The PRIMARY trial demonstrated that [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was associated with a significant improvement in sensitivity and negative predictive value for sPCa detection.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that addition of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand PET/CT will enable some men to avoid transperineal prostate biopsy without missing sPCa, and will facilitate biopsy targeting of PSMA-avid sites.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicentre, two-arm, phase 3, randomised controlled trial will recruit 660 participants scheduled to undergo biopsy. Eligible participants will have clinical suspicion of sPCa with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 2 and red flags, or a PI-RADS score of 3 on mpMRI (PI-RADS v2). Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks stratified by centre. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05154162.

INTERVENTION

In the experimental arm, participants will undergo pelvic PSMA PET/CT. Local and central reviewers will interpret scans independently using the PRIMARY score. Participants with a positive result will undergo targeted transperineal prostate biopsies, whereas those with a negative result will undergo prostate-specific antigen monitoring alone. In the control arm, all participants undergo template transperineal prostate biopsies. Participants will be followed for subsequent clinical care for up to 2 yr after randomisation.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

sPCa is defined as Gleason score 3 + 4 (≥10%) = 7 disease (grade group 2) or higher on transperineal prostate biopsy. Avoidance of transperineal prostate biopsy will be measured at 6 mo from randomisation. The primary endpoints will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient enrolment began in March 2022, with recruitment expected to take 36 mo.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For patients with suspected prostate cancer who have nonsuspicious or unclear MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan findings, a different type of scan (called PSMA PET/CT; prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography) may identify men who could avoid an invasive prostate biopsy. This type of scan could also help urologists in better targeting of samples from suspicious lesions during prostate biopsies.

The Impact of Omitting Contralateral Systematic Biopsy on the Surgical Planning of Patients with a Unilateral Suspicious Lesion on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Undergoing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Background and objective

A combined approach of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) and bilateral systematic biopsy (SBx) is advised in patients who have an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa). The diagnostic gain of SBx in detecting PCa for treatment planning of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is unknown. This study aims to determine the impact of omitting contralateral SBx on the surgical planning of patients undergoing RARP in terms of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).

Methods

Case files from 80 men with biopsy-proven PCa were studied. All men had a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI, and underwent TBx and bilateral SBx. Case files were presented to five urologists for the surgical planning of RARP. Each case file was presented randomly using two different sets of information: (1) results of TBx + bilateral SBx, and (2) results of TBx + ipsilateral SBx. The urologists assessed whether they would perform NSS and/or ePLND.

Key findings and limitations

A change in the surgical plan concerning NSS on the contralateral side was observed in 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4-12.2) of cases. Additionally, the indication for ePLND changed in 5.3% (95% CI 3.3-7.9) of cases. Interobserver agreement based on Fleiss' kappa changed from 0.44 to 0.15 for the indication of NSS and from 0.84 to 0.83 for the indication of ePLND.

Conclusions and clinical implications

In our series, the diagnostic information obtained from contralateral SBx has limited impact on the surgical planning of patients with a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI scheduled to undergo RARP.

Patient summary

In patients with one-sided prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging, omitting biopsies on the other side rarely changed the surgical plan with respect to nerve-sparing surgery and the indication to perform extended lymph node dissection.

The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives

PURPOSE

Prostate biopsy is central to the accurate histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. In current practice, the biopsy procedure can be performed using a transrectal or transperineal route with different technologies available for targeting of lesions within the prostate. Historically, the biopsy procedure was performed solely by urologists, but with the advent of image-guided techniques, the involvement of radiologists in prostate biopsy has become more common. Herein, we discuss the pros, cons and future considerations regarding their ongoing role.

METHODS

A narrative review regarding the current evidence was completed. PubMed and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were search until January 2024. All study types were of consideration if published after 2000 and an English language translation was available.

RESULTS

There are no published studies that directly compare outcomes of prostate biopsy when performed by a urologist or radiologist. In all published studies regarding the learning curve for prostate biopsy, the procedure was performed by urologists. These studies suggest that the learning curve for prostate biopsy is between 10 and 50 cases to reach proficiency in terms of prostate cancer detection and complications. It is recognised that many urologists are poorly able to accurately interpret multi parametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. Collaboration between the specialities is of importance with urology offering the advantage of being involved in prior and future care of the patient while radiology has the advantage of being able to expertly interpret preprocedure MRI.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to suggest that prostate biopsy should be solely performed by a specific specialty. The most important factor remains knowledge of the relevant anatomy and sufficient volume of cases to develop and maintain skills.

Relationship between Eccentricity and Volume Determined by Spectral Algorithms Applied to Spatially Registered Bi-Parametric MRI and Prostate Tumor Aggressiveness: A Pilot Study

(1) Background: Non-invasive prostate cancer assessments using multi-parametric MRI are essential to the reliable detection of lesions and proper management of patients. While current guidelines call for the administration of Gadolinium-containing intravenous contrast injections, eliminating such injections would simplify scanning and reduce patient risk and costs. However, augmented image analysis is necessary to extract important diagnostic information from MRIs. Purpose: This study aims to extend previous work on the signal to clutter ratio and test whether prostate tumor eccentricity and volume are indicators of tumor aggressiveness using bi-parametric (BP)-MRI. (2) Methods: This study retrospectively processed 42 consecutive prostate cancer patients from the PI-CAI data collection. BP-MRIs (apparent diffusion coefficient, high b-value, and T2 images) were resized, translated, cropped, and stitched to form spatially registered BP-MRIs. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade was used to judge cases of prostate cancer as either clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) (ISUP ≥ 2) or clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CiPCa) (ISUP < 2). The Adaptive Cosine Estimator (ACE) algorithm was applied to the BP-MRIs, followed by thresholding, and then eccentricity and volume computations, from the labeled and blobbed detection maps. Then, univariate and multivariate linear regression fittings of eccentricity and volume were applied to the ISUP grade. The fits were quantitatively evaluated by computing correlation coefficients (R) and p-values. Area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve scores were used to assess the logistic fitting to CsPCa/CiPCa. (3) Results: Modest correlation coefficients (R) (>0.35) and AUC scores (0.70) for the linear and/or logistic fits from the processed prostate tumor eccentricity and volume computations for the spatially registered BP-MRIs exceeded fits using the parameters of prostate serum antigen, prostate volume, and patient age (R~0.17). (4) Conclusions: This is the first study that applied spectral approaches to BP-MRIs to generate tumor eccentricity and volume metrics to assess tumor aggressiveness. This study found significant values of R and AUC (albeit below those from multi-parametric MRI) to fit and relate the metrics to the ISUP grade and CsPCA/CiPCA, respectively.

T2-Weighted MRI Radiomic Features Predict Prostate Cancer Presence and Eventual Biochemical Recurrence

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most diagnosed non-cutaneous cancer in men. Despite therapies such as radical prostatectomy, which is considered curative, distant metastases may form, resulting in biochemical recurrence (BCR). This study used radiomic features calculated from multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) to evaluate their ability to predict BCR and PCa presence. Data from a total of 279 patients, of which 46 experienced BCR, undergoing MP-MRI prior to surgery were assessed for this study. After surgery, the prostate was sectioned using patient-specific 3D-printed slicing jigs modeled using the T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). Sectioned tissue was stained, digitized, and annotated by a GU-fellowship trained pathologist for cancer presence. Digitized slides and annotations were co-registered to the T2WI and radiomic features were calculated across the whole prostate and cancerous lesions. A tree regression model was fitted to assess the ability of radiomic features to predict BCR, and a tree classification model was fitted with the same radiomic features to classify regions of cancer. We found that 10 radiomic features predicted eventual BCR with an AUC of 0.97 and classified cancer at an accuracy of 89.9%. This study showcases the application of a radiomic feature-based tool to screen for the presence of prostate cancer and assess patient prognosis, as determined by biochemical recurrence.

Evaluating the Utility of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in Risk Stratification of PI-RADS 3 Peripheral Zone Lesions on Non-Contrast-Enhanced Prostate MRI: An Exploratory Single-Institution Study

Objective This study aimed to explore the potential of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) as a supplementary tool for defining high-risk Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions in the peripheral zone on non-contrast-enhanced MRI. This additional stratification tool could supplement the decision-making process for biopsy, potentially helping in identifying higher-risk patients more accurately, minimizing unnecessary procedures in lower-risk patients, and limiting the need for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) scans. Materials and methods Between January 2019 and April 2023, 30 patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies at our institution. Age and PSAD values were investigated using logistic regression and chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) analysis to discern their predictive value for malignancy. Results The mean patient age was 64.7 years, and the mean PSAD was 0.13 ng/mL2. Logistic regression demonstrated PSAD to be a significant predictor of cancer (p=0.012), but not age (p=0.855). CHAID analysis further identified a PSAD cut-off value of 0.12, below which the cancer detection rate was 23.1% and above which the rate increased to 76.5%. Conclusions This exploratory study suggests that PSAD might be utilized to enhance the stratification of high-risk PI-RADS 3 lesions in the peripheral zone on non-contrast-enhanced MRI, aiding in decision-making for biopsy. While biopsy remains the gold standard for definitive diagnosis, a high PSAD value may suggest a greater need for biopsy in this specific group. Although further validation in larger cohorts is required, our findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimizing PI-RADS 3 lesion management. Limitations include a small sample size, the retrospective nature of the study, and the single-center setting, which may impact the generalizability of our results.

Re-evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of PSA as a referral test to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in contemporary MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways

Introduction

Modern image-guided biopsy pathways at diagnostic centres have greatly refined the investigations of men referred with suspected prostate cancer. However, the referral criteria from primary care are still based on historical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cut-offs and age-referenced thresholds. Here, we tested whether better contemporary pathways and biopsy methods had improved the predictive utility value of PSA referral thresholds.

Methods

PSA referral thresholds, age-referenced ranges and PSA density (PSAd) were assessed for positive predictive value (PPV) in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa - histological ⩾ Grade Group 2). Data were analysed from men referred to three diagnostics centres who used multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided prostate biopsies for disease characterisation. Findings were validated in a separate multicentre cohort. Results: Data from 2767 men were included in this study. The median age, PSA and PSAd were 66.4 years, 7.3 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL2, respectively. Biopsy detected csPCa was found in 38.7%. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for PSA was 0.68 which is similar to historical performance. A PSA threshold of ⩾ 3 ng/mL had a PPV of 40.3%, but this was age dependent (PPV: 24.8%, 32.7% and 56.8% in men 50-59 years, 60-69 years and ⩾ 70 years, respectively). Different PSA cut-offs and age-reference ranges failed to demonstrate better performance. PSAd demonstrated improved AUC (0.78 vs 0.68, p < 0.0001) and improved PPV compared to PSA. A PSAd of ⩾ 0.10 had a PPV of 48.2% and similar negative predictive value (NPV) to PSA ⩾ 3 ng/mL and out-performed PSA age-reference ranges. This improved performance was recapitulated in a separate multi-centre cohort (n = 541).

Conclusion

The introduction of MRI-based image-guided biopsy pathways does not appear to have altered PSA diagnostic test characteristics to positively detect csPCa. We find no added value to PSA age-referenced ranges, while PSAd offers better PPV and the potential for a single clinically useful threshold (⩾0.10) for all age groups.

Level of evidence

IV.

The rapid assessment for prostate imaging and diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID.

RESULTS

The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre-RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9-34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre-level variations.

Prognostic significance of PI-RADS 5 lesions in patients treated by radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To analyse the pathological features and survival of patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion on pre-biopsy MRI.

METHODS

We extracted from a European multicentre prospectively gathered database the data of patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion on pre-biopsy MRI, diagnosed using both systematic and targeted biopsies and subsequently treated by radical prostatectomy. The Kaplan-Meier model was used to assess the biochemical-free survival of the whole cohort and univariable and multivariable Cox models were set up to study factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2019, 539 consecutive patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion on pre-biopsy MRI were treated by radical prostatectomy and included in the analysis. Follow-up data were available for 448 patients. Radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection specimens showed non-organ confined disease in 297/539 (55%), (including 2 patients with a locally staged pT2 lesion and lymph node involvement (LNI)). With a median follow-up of 25 months (12-39), the median biochemical recurrence-free survival was 54% at 2 years (95% CI 45-61) and 28% at 5 years (95% CI 18-39). Among the factors studied, MRI T stage [T3a vs T2 HR 3.57 (95%CI 1.78-7.16); T3b vs T2 HR 6.17 (95% CI 2.99-12.72)] and PSA density (HR 4.47 95% CI 1.55-12.89) were significantly associated with a higher risk of biochemical recurrence in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion on pre-biopsy MRI have a high risk of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. MRI T stage and PSA density can be used to improve patient selection and counselling.

Clinical Trial Protocol: Developing an Image Classification Algorithm for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Three-dimensional Multiparametric Transrectal Ultrasound

Introduction and hypothesis

The tendency toward population-based screening programs for prostate cancer (PCa) is expected to increase demand for prebiopsy imaging. This study hypothesizes that a machine learning image classification algorithm for three-dimensional multiparametric transrectal prostate ultrasound (3D mpUS) can detect PCa accurately.

Design

This is a phase 2 prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study. A total of 715 patients will be included in a period of approximately 2 yr. Patients are eligible in case of suspected PCa for which prostate biopsy is indicated or in case of biopsy-proven PCa for which radical prostatectomy (RP) will be performed. Exclusion criteria are prior treatment for PCa or contraindications for ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs).

Protocol overview

Study participants will undergo 3D mpUS, consisting of 3D grayscale, 4D contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and 3D shear wave elastography (SWE). Whole-mount RP histopathology will provide the ground truth to train the image classification algorithm. Patients included prior to prostate biopsy will be used for subsequent preliminary validation. There is a small, anticipated risk for participants associated with the administration of a UCA. Informed consent has to be given prior to study participation, and (serious) adverse events will be reported.

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome will be the diagnostic performance of the algorithm for detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) on a per-voxel and a per-microregion level. Diagnostic performance will be reported as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Clinically significant PCa is defined as the International Society of Urological grade group ≥2. Full-mount RP histopathology will be used as the reference standard. Secondary outcomes will be sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for csPCa on a per-patient level, evaluated in patients included prior to prostate biopsy, using biopsy results as the reference standard. A further analysis will be performed on the ability of the algorithm to differentiate between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk tumors.

Discussion and summary

This study aims to develop an ultrasound-based imaging modality for PCa detection. Subsequent head-to-head validation trials with magnetic resonance imaging have to be performed in order to determine its role in clinical practice for risk stratification in patients suspected for PCa.

The diagnostic performance in clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS version 2.1: simplified bpMRI versus standard mpMRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between bpMRI with only axial T2WI (simplified bpMRI) and standard-multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

METHODS

A total of 569 patients who underwent mpMRI followed by biopsy or prostatectomy were enrolled in this retrospective study. According to PI-RADS v2.1, three radiologists (A, B, C) from three centers blinded to clinical variables were assigned scores on lesions with simplified bpMRI and then with mpMRI 2 weeks later. Diagnostic performance of simplified bpMRI was compared with mpMRI using histopathology as reference standard.

RESULTS

For all the three radiologists, the diagnostic sensitivity was significantly higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI (P < 0.001 to P = 0.035); and although specificity was also higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI for radiologist B and radiologist C, it was statistically significant only for radiologist B (P = 0.011, P = 0.359, respectively). On the contrary, for radiologist A, specificity was higher with simplified bpMRI than with mpMRI (P = 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was significantly higher for mpMRI than for simplified bpMRI except for radiologist A (radiologist A: 0.903 vs 0.913, P = 0.1542; radiologist B: 0.861 vs 0.834 P = 0.0013; and radiologist C: 0.884 vs 0.848, P = 0.0003). Interobserver reliability of PI-RADS v2.1 showed good agreement for both simplified bpMRI (kappa = 0.665) and mpMRI (kappa = 0.739).

CONCLUSION

Although the detection of csPCa with simplified bpMRI was comparatively lower than that with mpMRI, the diagnostic performance was still high in simplified bpMRI. Our data justify using mpMRI outperforms simplified bpMRI for prostate cancer screening and imply simplified bpMRI as a potential screening tool.

Are Urologists Ready for Interpretation of Multiparametric MRI Findings? A Prospective Multicentric Evaluation

Aim: To assess urologists’ proficiency in the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Materials and Methods: Twelve mpMRIs were shown to 73 urologists from seven Italian institutions. Responders were asked to identify the site of the suspicious nodule (SN) but not to assign a PIRADS score. We set an a priori cut-off of 75% correct identification of SN as a threshold for proficiency in mpMRI reading. Data were analyzed according to urologists’ hierarchy (UH; resident vs. consultant) and previous experience in fusion prostate biopsies (E-fPB, defined as <125 vs. ≥125). Additionally, we tested for differences between non-proficient vs. proficient mpMRI readers. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVLRA) tested potential predictors of proficiency in mpMRI reading. Results: The median (IQR) number of correct identifications was 8 (6−8). Anterior nodules (number 3, 4 and 6) represented the most likely prone to misinterpretation. Overall, 34 (47%) participants achieved the 75% cut-off. When comparing consultants vs. residents, we found no differences in terms of E-fPB (p = 0.9) or in correct identification rates (p = 0.6). We recorded higher identification rates in urologists with E-fBP vs. their no E-fBP counterparts (75% vs. 67%, p = 0.004). At MVLRA, only E- fPB reached the status of independent predictor of proficiency in mpMRI reading (OR: 3.4, 95% CI 1.2−9.9, p = 0.02) after adjusting for UH and type of institution. Conclusions: Despite urologists becoming more familiar with interpretation of mpMRI, their results are still far from proficient. E-fPB enhances the proficiency in mpMRI interpretation.

Prostate cancer classification using radiomics and machine learning on mp-MRI validated using co-registered histology

BACKGROUND

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is emerging as a useful tool for prostate cancer (PCa) detection but currently has unaddressed limitations. Computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed to address these needs, but many approaches used to generate and validate the models have inherent biases.

METHOD

All clinically significant PCa on histology was mapped to mp-MRI using a previously validated registration algorithm. Shape and size matched non-PCa regions were selected using a proposed sampling algorithm to eliminate biases towards shape and size. Further analysis was performed to assess biases regarding inter-zonal variability.

RESULTS

A 5-feature Naïve-Bayes classifier produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 validated using leave-one-patient-out cross-validation. As mean inter-class area mismatch increased, median AUC trended towards positively biasing classifiers to producing higher AUCs. Classifiers were invariant to differences in shape between PCa and non-PCa lesions (AUC: 0.82 vs 0.82). Performance for models trained and tested only in the peripheral zone was found to be lower than in the central gland (AUC: 0.75 vs 0.95).

CONCLUSION

We developed a radiomics based machine learning system to classify PCa vs non-PCa tissue on mp-MRI validated on accurately co-registered mid-gland histology with a measured target registration error. Potential biases involved in model development were interrogated to provide considerations for future work in this area.

Prostate Cancer Detection Percentages of Repeat Biopsy in Patients with Positive Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert 3-5) and Negative Initial Biopsy. A Mini Systematic Review

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has high sensitivity but low specificity for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the proportion of PCa found at a repeat biopsy in patients with a negative initial prostate biopsy, despite initial positive mpMRI. Included patients had a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert 3-5 lesion on mpMRI prior to the initial mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy, which was negative for PCa on histology. The main outcomes were the overall and clinically significant PCa (csPCa; International Society of Urological Pathology >1 or any provided definition) percentages at a repeat biopsy. Out of 1179 articles identified, nine studies were included (a total of 485 patients). For patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions, overall and csPCa detection percentages ranged from 0% to 80% and from 0% to 20%, respectively, while for patients with PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, the corresponding percentages were 15.4-86% and 7.7-57%. An overall cancer detection percentage of 87.5% was reported in patients with Likert 5 lesions. Limitation of our review is the small number of studies and the protocol revision that allowed studies with <50 patients. In patients with a positive MRI result and a negative initial MRI-targeted biopsy, we suggest MRI re-reading and follow-up with repeat mpMRI or the standard repeat biopsy in cases at the highest risk. PATIENT SUMMARY: Literature has shown that in men with an abnormal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan but a normal biopsy, a significant prostate cancer can be present. MRI scans should be double checked, followed by standard checkups or repeat prostate biopsy, especially in highly suspicious cases.

Predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy men with a negative prostate MRI: improving MRI-based screening with a novel risk calculator

Purpose:

A pre-biopsy decision aid is needed to counsel men with a clinical suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), despite normal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods:

A risk calculator (RC) for csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP) ⩾ 2) presence in men with a negative-MRI (Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ⩽ 2) was developed, and its performance was compared with RCs of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG), and Prospective Loyola University mpMRI (PLUM). All biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy men with a negative-MRI followed by systematic prostate biopsy were included from October 2015 to September 2021. The RC was developed using multivariable logistic regression with the following parameters: age (years), family history of PCa (first- or second-degree family member), ancestry (African Caribbean/other), digital rectal exam (benign/malignant), MRI field strength (1.5/3.0 Tesla), prior negative biopsy status, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (ng/ml/cc). Performance of RCs was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results:

A total of 232 men were included for analysis, of which 18.1% had csPCa. Parameters associated with csPCa were family history of PCa (p < 0.0001), African Caribbean ancestry (p = 0.005), PSA density (p = 0.002), prior negative biopsy (p = 0.06), and age at biopsy (p = 0.157). The area under the curve (AUC) of the developed RC was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.85). This was significantly better than the RCs of the ERSPC (AUC: 0.59; p = 0.001) and PBCG (AUC: 0.60; p = 0.002), yet similar to PLUM (AUC: 0.69; p = 0.09).

Conclusion:

The developed RC (Prostate Biopsy Cohort Amsterdam (‘PROBA’ RC), integrated predictors for csPCa at prostate biopsy in negative-MRI men and outperformed other widely used RCs. These findings require external validation before introduction in daily practice.

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.

Deep learning for fully automatic detection, segmentation, and Gleason grade estimation of prostate cancer in multiparametric magnetic resonance images

Although the emergence of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has had a profound impact on the diagnosis of prostate cancers (PCa), analyzing these images remains still complex even for experts. This paper proposes a fully automatic system based on Deep Learning that performs localization, segmentation and Gleason grade group (GGG) estimation of PCa lesions from prostate mpMRIs. It uses 490 mpMRIs for training/validation and 75 for testing from two different datasets: ProstateX and Valencian Oncology Institute Foundation. In the test set, it achieves an excellent lesion-level AUC/sensitivity/specificity for the GGG\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document}≥2 significance criterion of 0.96/1.00/0.79 for the ProstateX dataset, and 0.95/1.00/0.80 for the IVO dataset. At a patient level, the results are 0.87/1.00/0.375 in ProstateX, and 0.91/1.00/0.762 in IVO. Furthermore, on the online ProstateX grand challenge, the model obtained an AUC of 0.85 (0.87 when trained only on the ProstateX data, tying up with the original winner of the challenge). For expert comparison, IVO radiologist’s PI-RADS 4 sensitivity/specificity were 0.88/0.56 at a lesion level, and 0.85/0.58 at a patient level. The full code for the ProstateX-trained model is openly available at https://github.com/OscarPellicer/prostate_lesion_detection. We hope that this will represent a landmark for future research to use, compare and improve upon.

Radiomics in prostate cancer: an up-to-date review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common worldwide diagnosed malignancy in male population. The diagnosis, the identification of aggressive disease, and the post-treatment follow-up needs a more comprehensive and holistic approach. Radiomics is the extraction and interpretation of images phenotypes in a quantitative manner. Radiomics may give an advantage through advancements in imaging modalities and through the potential power of artificial intelligence techniques by translating those features into clinical outcome prediction. This article gives an overview on the current evidence of methodology and reviews the available literature on radiomics in PCa patients, highlighting its potential for personalized treatment and future applications.

Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer reliability of the O-RADS scoring system among staff radiologists in a North American academic clinical setting

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, interobserver variability, and common lexicon pitfalls of the ACR O-RADS scoring system among staff radiologists without prior experience to O-RADS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After independent review of the ACR O-RADS publications and 30 training cases, three fellowship-trained, board-certified staff radiologists scored 50 pelvic ultrasound exams using the O-RADS system. The diagnostic accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic were analyzed for each reader. Overall agreement and pair-wise agreement between readers were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Excellent specificities (92 to 100%), NPVs (92 to 100%), and variable sensitivities (72 to 100%), PPVs (66 to 100%) were observed. Considering O-RADS 4 and O-RADS 5 as predictors of malignancy, individual reader AUC values range from 0.94 to 0.98 (p < 0.001). Overall inter-reader agreement for all 3 readers was "very good," k = 0.82 (0.73 to 0.90, 95% CI, p < 0.001). Pair-wise agreement between readers were also "very good," k = 0.86-0.92. 14 out of 150 lesions were misclassified, with the most common error being down-scoring of a solid lesion with irregular outer contours.

CONCLUSION

Even without specific training, experienced ultrasound readers can achieve excellent diagnostic performance and high inter-reader reliability with self-directed review of guidelines and cases. The study highlights the effectiveness of ACR O-RADS as a stratification tool for radiologists and supports its continued use in practice.

Value of an online PI-RADS v2.1 score calculator for assessment of prostate MRI

Purpose

To evaluate the value of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator (PCalc) compared to MRI reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document (PDoc) for non-specialized radiologists in terms of reporting efficiency, interrater agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Between 09/2013 and 04/2015, 100 patients (median age, 64.8; range 47.5-78.2) who underwent prostate-MRI at a 3 T scanner and who received transperineal prostate mapping biopsy within <6 months were included in this retrospective study. Two non-specialized radiology residents (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2.1 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion (i) using the original PI-RADS v2.1 document only and after a 6-week interval (ii) using a browser-based PCalc. Reading time was measured. Reading time differences were assessed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Intraclass-correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater agreement (IRA). Parameters of diagnostic accuracy and ROC curves were used for assessment of lesion-based diagnostic accuracy.

Results

Cumulative reading time was 32:55 (mm:ss) faster when using the PCalc, the difference being statistically significant for both readers (p < 0.05). The difference in IRA between the image sets (ICC 0.55 [0.40, 0.68]) and 0.75 [0.65, 0.82] for the image set with PDoc and PCalc, respectively) was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in lesion-based diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.83 [0.74, 0.92] and 0.82 [95 %CI: 0.74, 0.91]) for images assessed with PDoc as compared to PCalc (AUC 0.82 [0.74, 0.91] and 0.74 [95 %CI: 0.64, 0.83]) for R1 and R2, respectively.

Conclusion

Non-specialized radiologists may increase reading speed in prostate MRI with the help of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator compared to reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document without impairing interreader agreement or lesion-based diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant PCa.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based Radiomic Models of Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

Simple Summary

The increasing interest in implementing artificial intelligence in radiomic models has occurred alongside advancement in the tools used for computer-aided diagnosis. Such tools typically apply both statistical and machine learning methodologies to assess the various modalities used in medical image analysis. Specific to prostate cancer, the radiomics pipeline has multiple facets that are amenable to improvement. This review discusses the steps of a magnetic resonance imaging based radiomics pipeline. Present successes, existing opportunities for refinement, and the most pertinent pending steps leading to clinical validation are highlighted.

Abstract

The management of prostate cancer (PCa) is dependent on biomarkers of biological aggression. This includes an invasive biopsy to facilitate a histopathological assessment of the tumor’s grade. This review explores the technical processes of applying magnetic resonance imaging based radiomic models to the evaluation of PCa. By exploring how a deep radiomics approach further optimizes the prediction of a PCa’s grade group, it will be clear how this integration of artificial intelligence mitigates existing major technological challenges faced by a traditional radiomic model: image acquisition, small data sets, image processing, labeling/segmentation, informative features, predicting molecular features and incorporating predictive models. Other potential impacts of artificial intelligence on the personalized treatment of PCa will also be discussed. The role of deep radiomics analysis-a deep texture analysis, which extracts features from convolutional neural networks layers, will be highlighted. Existing clinical work and upcoming clinical trials will be reviewed, directing investigators to pertinent future directions in the field. For future progress to result in clinical translation, the field will likely require multi-institutional collaboration in producing prospectively populated and expertly labeled imaging libraries.

Interobserver agreement of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS–v2)

Background

A retrospective study was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) with a mean age of 56 years and underwent mp-MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla MRI. Two readers recognized all prostatic lesions, and each lesion had a score according to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS-v2).

Purpose of the study

To evaluate the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in characterization of prostatic lesions using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) at 3 Tesla MRI.

Results

The overall interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 for both zones was excellent (k = 0.81, percent agreement = 94.9%). In the peripheral zone (PZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS II (k = 0.78, percent agreement = 83.9%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.66, percent agreement = 91.3 %), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.69, percent agreement = 93.5%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.91, percent agreement = 95.7 %). In the transitional zone (TZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS I (k = 0.98, percent of agreement = 96%), PI-RADS II (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 96%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 88%), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.83, percent agreement = 96%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.82, percent agreement = 92%).

Conclusion

We concluded that PI-RADS-v2 is a reliable and a reproducible imaging modality for the characterization of prostatic lesions and detection of PCa.

PI-RADSv2.1: Current status

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has played an increasing role in the detection and local staging of prostate cancer over the last 15 years. Prostate mpMRI, due to various factors, is prone to high inter-reader variability necessitating standardized reporting guidelines that provide accurate and actionable information to the ordering clinician. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) was released in March 2019 as an update to PI-RADSv2.0 with the hope of further standardizing the reporting process of prostate mpMRI, improving the detection of clinically significant cancer, reducing the biopsy rate of indolent tumors, and decreasing inter-reader variability. Early data show an improved performance of PI-RADSv2.1 over PI-RADSv2.0. Updates included in PI-RADSv2.1 and its current experience in clinic will be reviewed in this review.

PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Performance in Peripheral and Transition Zone Lesions Among Six Radiologists

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) modifications primarily address transition zone (TZ) interpretation. The revisions also impact peripheral zone (PZ) interpretation, which has received less attention. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare interobserver agreement of PI-RADS version 2 (v2) and v2.1 in the prostate PZ and TZ and perform a pilot comparison of their diagnostic performance in the two zones. METHODS. Six radiologists with varying experience retrospectively assessed 80 prostate lesions (40 PZ, 40 TZ) on MRI in separate sessions for PI-RADS v2 and v2.1. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Conger kappa (κ). For 50 lesions with pathology data, average AUC for detecting clinically significant cancer was compared between versions using multireader multicase statistical methods. Error variance and covariance results informed post hoc power analysis. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement for PI-RADS category 4 or greater was higher for version 2.1 (κ = 0.64) than version 2 (κ = 0.51) in the PZ, but similar for version 2 (κ = 0.64) and version 2.1 (κ = 0.60) in the TZ. The PI-RADS v2.1 DWI descriptor "linear/wedge-shaped" had higher agreement than its predecessor version 2 descriptor "indistinct hypointense" (κ = 0.52 vs κ = 0.18) and yielded 14 more true-negative versus five more false-negative interpretations. The ADC signal descriptor "markedly hypointense," for which only version 2.1 provides a specific definition, had lower agreement in version 2.1 (κ = 0.26) than version 2 (κ = 0.52). Modified TZ T2-weighted category 2 descriptors in version 2.1 had fair agreement (κ = 0.21), and agreement for PI-RADS category 2 in the TZ was lower in version 2.1 (κ = 0.31) than version 2 (κ = 0.57). DWI upgraded a TZ lesion category from 2 to 3 in four patients, detecting two additional cancers. Average AUC was not different between versions 2 and 2.1 for the PZ (AUC, 0.81 vs 0.85; p = .24) or the TZ (AUC, 0.69 vs 0.69; p = .94), though among experienced readers AUC was higher for version 2.1 than version 2 for the PZ (0.91 vs 0.82; p = .001). Overall performance comparison had sufficient power (0.8) to detect a 0.085 difference in AUC. CONCLUSION. Interobserver agreement improved using PI-RADS v2.1 in the PZ but not the TZ. Diagnostic performance improved using version 2.1 only in the PZ for experienced readers. Specific version 2.1 modifications yielded mixed results. CLINICAL IMPACT. The impact of PI-RADS v2.1 in the PZ is notable given the emphasis on version 2.1 TZ modifications. The findings suggest areas in which additional modification could further improve interobserver agreement and performance.

Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study

BACKGROUND

The clinical pathway to detect and diagnose prostate cancer has been revolutionised by the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI pre-biopsy). mpMRI however remains a resource-intensive test and is highly operator dependent with variable effectiveness with regard to its negative predictive value. Here we tested the use of the phi assay in standard clinical practice to pre-select men at the highest risk of harbouring significant cancer and hence refine the use of mpMRI and biopsies.

METHODS

A prospective five-centre study recruited men being investigated through an mpMRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Test statistics for PSA, PSA density (PSAd) and phi were assessed for detecting significant cancers using 2 definitions: ≥ Grade Group (GG2) and ≥ Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) 3. Cost modelling and decision curve analysis (DCA) was simultaneously performed.

RESULTS

A total of 545 men were recruited and studied with a median age, PSA and phi of 66 years, 8.0 ng/ml and 44 respectively. Overall, ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancer detection rates were 64% (349/545), 47% (256/545) and 32% (174/545) respectively. There was no difference across centres for patient demographics or cancer detection rates. The overall area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ≥ GG2 cancers was 0.70 for PSA and 0.82 for phi. AUCs for ≥ CPG3 cancers were 0.81 and 0.87 for PSA and phi respectively. AUC values for phi did not differ between centres suggesting reliability of the test in different diagnostic settings. Pre-referral phi cut-offs between 20 and 30 had NPVs of 0.85-0.90 for ≥ GG2 cancers and 0.94-1.0 for ≥ CPG3 cancers. A strategy of mpMRI in all and biopsy only positive lesions reduced unnecessary biopsies by 35% but missed 9% of ≥ GG2 and 5% of ≥ CPG3 cancers. Using PH ≥ 30 to rule out referrals missed 8% and 5% of ≥ GG2 and ≥ CPG3 cancers (and reduced unnecessary biopsies by 40%). This was achieved however with 25% fewer mpMRI. Pathways incorporating PSAd missed fewer cancers but necessitated more unnecessary biopsies. The phi strategy had the lowest mean costs with DCA demonstrating net clinical benefit over a range of thresholds.

CONCLUSION

phi as a triaging test may be an effective way to reduce mpMRI and biopsies without compromising detection of significant prostate cancers.