The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer

Role of MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer and correlation of results with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy “TRUS”

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in elderly men, and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in developed countries. For a long time, TRUS is used in screening, diagnosis of prostate lesions. Recently the implementation of multi parametric MRI into a screening program currently seems to be the most promising technique to improve the early detection of prostate cancer.

Results

Thirty Patients were referred from urological outpatient clinics complaining of urological symptoms (dysuria, frequency and urine retention). The study was carried, and the patients were submitted to Ultrasonography, conventional magnetic resonance, diffusion weighted images and MR spectroscopy techniques, these results were correlated with histopathological data. In this study Conventional MRI has moderate sensitivity 81.8% and low specificity 37.3% in diagnosing prostate malignancy. Using of mpMRI combination of diffusion-weighted, Dynamic contrast enhanced and MR spectroscopic imaging is a promising approach for discriminating between benign and malignant lesions in the PZ and increase sensitivity 100% and specificity 96.6% in diagnosing prostate malignancy.

Conclusions

The standard for the definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer is trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy. However, TRUS guided biopsy has a significant sampling error and can miss up to 30% of cancers and may show underestimation of Gleason grade, especially in anteriorly located tumors. It may lead to an increase in complications. MRI has an essential role to play in making safer in diagnosis. It can aid in staging also and surgery or radiation treatment planning. Although T2W MRI has been used widely for diagnosis on the basis of its excellent soft tissue resolution, but its accuracy for the detection and localization of cancer prostate is unsatisfactory. The implementation of multi parametric MRI: MR spectroscopy, Dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted imaging into a diagnosis program improve the diagnostic performance. These advances are beginning to translate into better treatment selection and more accurate image-guided therapies. In addition, early detection of local recurrence.

The role of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Transrectal ultrasound (US) imaging is paramount to the successful completion of prostate biopsies. Certain US features have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa), but their utility remains controversial. We explored the role of multiparametric US (mpUS) in the detection of clinically significant PCa.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study to contrast the findings of prostate MRI and mpUS. Patients who underwent MRI, US and biopsy between 2015 and 2021 were included. Biopsies were performed using a systematic approach (12 cores), as well as with MRI (4 cores/lesion) and US (1 core/lesion) targeting. The US features analyzed consisted of: calcifications, hypoechoic lesions and power or color Doppler positivity. Gleason 3 + 4 or higher was used as to define true positives. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for the different imaging modalities.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 74 patients, of which 24 (32.4%) had clinically significant PCa. The concordance between MRI and US was 63.5%. Seven individuals with discordant results had clinically significant PCa. MRI alone was more sensitive (87.5% vs 75%) but less specific (28% vs 32%) than US alone. An all-inclusive approach considering any suspicious US or MRI finding had a sensitivity of 95.8%. A more restrictive approach, targeting lesions noted in both US and MRI, yielded the highest specificity (50.0%) and accuracy (55.4%).

CONCLUSION

Biopsy targeting based on US findings can provide additional diagnostic information that may increase sensitivity or specificity. Additional research into this topic could open the door to a more personalized approach to prostate biopsy.

Hypoehoic lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound and its correlation to Gleason grade in the diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Study

Context The importance of hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) merits re-assessment in the present era of widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.

Aims We aimed to investigate the predictive accuracy of hypoechoic lesions on TRUS of prostate in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and to examine the association of hypoechoic lesions with the aggressiveness of prostate cancer.

Settings and Design This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary care center in South India from November 2017 to December 2019.

Methods and Material We included 151 patients undergoing TRUS-guided 12-core prostate biopsy in view of raised serum PSA with or without suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) findings in the study. Age, DRE findings, serum PSA level, TRUS findings, and histopathology reports were documented. These were compared between patients with and without hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.

Statistical Analysis Used The statistical analysis for this study was performed using SPSS v20.0 software.

Results Among 151 men, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 68 (45.03%) with mean age at presentation 69.81 ± 6.49 years. Fifty-eight cases (38.41%) had hypoechoic lesion on TRUS and the cancer detection rate (68.96%) amongst this group was significantly higher than in those without hypoechoic lesion ( p <0.0001). Patients with hypoechoic lesion were more likely to have higher grade cancer. Abnormal DRE findings and hypoechoic lesion on TRUS were independent predictors of a clinically significant cancer ( p <0.05).

Conclusion Hypoechoic lesion on TRUS can be considered as an indicator of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale ultrasound for evaluating prostate cancer

Introduction

Although transrectal ultrasound is routinely performed for imaging prostate lesions, colour Doppler imaging visualizing vascularity is not commonly used for diagnosis. The goal of this study was to measure vascular and echogenic differences between malignant and benign lesions of the prostate by quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale transrectal ultrasound.

Methods

Greyscale and colour Doppler ultrasound images of the prostate were acquired in 16 subjects with biopsy-proven malignant or benign lesions. Echogenicity and microvascular flow velocity of each lesion were measured by quantitative image analysis. Flow velocity was measured over several cardiac cycles and the velocity-time waveform was used to determine microvascular pulsatility index and microvascular resistivity index. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the malignant and benign groups.

Results

Median microvascular flow velocity of the malignant lesions was 1.25 cm/s compared to 0.36 cm/s for the benign lesions. Median pulsatility and resistive indices of the malignant lesions were 1.55 and 0.68, respectively versus 6.38 and 1.0 for the benign lesions. Malignant lesions were more hypoechoic relative to the surrounding tissue, with median echogenicity of 0.24 compared to 0.76 for the benign lesions. The differences between the malignant and benign groups for each measurement were significant (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Marked differences were observed in flow velocity, microvascular pulsatility, microvascular resistance, and echogenicity of prostate cancer measured with quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale ultrasound imaging. Vascular differences measured together with echogenicity have the combined potential to characterize malignant and benign prostate lesions.

How Often Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Detect Prostate Cancer Missed by Transrectal Ultrasound?

BACKGROUND

Lesion-targeted prostate biopsy based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been shown to be superior to systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy (SBx) alone in men at risk for prostate cancer (PCa). However, the incremental benefit of MRI-targeted biopsy (MBx) beyond SBx with ultrasound-targeted biopsy (UBx) is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a three-way comparison of UBx versus MBx versus SBx for PCa detection.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective, single-center cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients with PCa suspicion or low-risk PCa on active surveillance (AS). All men had at least one lesion (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3) on pre-biopsy mpMRI. UBx, MBx, and SBx were performed during the same encounter, and the urologists were blinded to MRI results and targeting until both SBx and UBx were completed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The ability of each biopsy type to identify the highest grade group (GG) was determined, and UBx and MBx were compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We prospectively enrolled 201 consecutive men undergoing targeted prostate biopsy: 72 (36%) were biopsy-naïve, 34 (17%) had a prior negative SBx, and 95 (47%) were on AS. Median age and prostate-specific antigen were 66 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 62-71) and 6.8 ng/ml (IQR 4.9-9.8), respectively. Suspicious hypoechoic lesions were reported on TRUS in 69%. Among the 169 men with PCa, SBx detected the highest GG or was equivalent to UBx/MBx in 136 (80%) men. UBx detected the highest GG or was equivalent to MBx in 19 (11%) men, and MBx alone detected the highest GG in 14 (8%) men. There was no significant difference between UBx and MBx in direct comparison (p = 0.08). Limitations include that patients were not randomized, our population was heterogeneous, and TRUS expertise at a tertiary care academic center might not reflect routine practice.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of high expertise and experience with both ultrasound and MRI, MBx offers only a modest benefit over SBx and UBx.

PATIENT SUMMARY

At a highly experienced academic medical center, we examined the detection rates of prostate cancer among men undergoing prostate biopsy using three techniques: transrectal ultrasound lesion-targeted biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy. We identified a few more cases of aggressive prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, but a large majority was found by ultrasound alone.

Targeted imaging of orthotopic prostate cancer by using clinical transformable photoacoustic molecular probe

BACKGROUND

To obtain high-yield histological samples by targeted prostate cancer (PCa) biopsy is the current trend compared with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic histological biopsy, which is regarded as the gold standard for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In this paper, we present a targeted PCa imaging strategy using a real-time molecular photoacoustic imaging system integrated with a handheld US probe (PAI/US) and synthesized an integrin α_vβ₃ targeted probe based on ICG (cRGD-ICG).

METHODS

To prepare cRGD-ICG, ICG-NHS was linked to cRGD through carboxyl-co-reaction. In vitro PA imaging ability of cRGD-ICG was tested. Orthotopic PCa-bearing rats were used as animal models. After injected with either cRGD-ICG or non-targeted probe, rats were implemented with PA imaging to confirm the specific accumulation of cRGD-ICG at tumor region. Moreover, pathological frozen slices were made to observe distribution of the probe in prostate tissue ex vivo.

RESULTS

A small molecular PAI probe was synthesized and exhibited excellent targeted imaging ability in vitro. In vivo photoacoustic imaging was carried out after intravenous injection of cRGD-ICG in orthotopic PCa-bearing rats under the facilitation of the PAI/US system. Maximum molecular photoacoustic signals were observed in the tumor area in vivo after the probe injection, which showed 3.8-fold higher signal enhancement than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Significantly higher cRGD-ICG accumulation was observed under confocal microscopy in the tumor region than in normal prostate tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

All our results showed that the comprehensive strategy provided a high-yield and reliable method for PCa diagnosis and targeted prostate biopsy, with great clinical translation potential.

Quantitation of hypoechoic lesions for the prediction and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Hypoechoic lesions are not included as indicators for prostate biopsy. To discriminate the features of hypoechoic lesions, we investigated the ultrasonographic characteristics of hypoechoic lesions using numerical analysis in image. In addition, we evaluated previously suggested subjective parameters on hypoechoic lesion.

METHODS

We performed one-core targeted biopsy (TBx) for each hypoechoic lesion in up to two lesions in each patient before the 12-core systemic biopsy was obtained between July 2015 and May 2016. Image analysis data were analyzed using grayscale values and Hounsfield units (HU) to measure heterogeneity. Subjective evaluation of hypoechoic lesions including hypoechoicity, irregularity, vascularity, and microcalcification was also validated.

RESULTS

Of 157 patients (median age = 67.1 years, median prostate-specific antigen = 6.21 ng/mL) included in the study, 77 (49.0%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa), and 39 (17.0%) diagnoses were confirmed by the results of targeted cores. The existence of hypoechoic lesions was not a final predictor for PCa detection. In multivariate analysis using a combination of clinical and quantitative image analyses, the grayscale value was identified as a significant predictive factor for the presence of PCa and high-grade disease (Gleason score ≥ 7) on target lesions. The combination of clinical and image variables had the highest area under the curve (0.890) for detecting PCa in TBx.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method for the quantitation of hypoechoic lesions using grayscale images and HU is simple. Combined with the current clinical approaches, quantitative scoring of lesions can be useful for detecting PCa and making more precise diagnoses.

Predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer using TRUS-guided biopsy in patients with negative initial biopsy results

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the setting of repeat prostate biopsy using trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy.

METHODS

A total of 636 patients who underwent repeat prostate biopsy were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the repeat biopsy results (with vs. without prostate cancer). A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer was detected in 98 patients (15.4%). Although there was no difference in the prostate-specific antigen velocity, the prostate-specific antigen density was higher in the patients with prostate cancer at the initial (0.14 vs. 0.17 ng/mL/cc, p = 0.049) and repeat biopsies (0.17 vs. 0.26 ng/mL/cc, p < 0.001). The proportions of the patients who met the active surveillance criteria were as follows: 22.4% (Johns Hopkins), 30.6% (University of Toronto), 32.7% (University of California at San Francisco), 30.6% (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance), 27.6% (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), and 13.3% (University of Miami). In the multivariable analysis, age, hypoechoic lesion on trans-rectal ultrasonography, and prostate-specific antigen density at the repeat biopsy were the significant predictors for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-rectal ultrasonography before repeat prostate biopsy and the prostate-specific antigen density are useful for selecting patients with a high probability for prostate cancer if repeat trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy is considered. In addition, these are also helpful for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies

Standard clinicopathological variables are inadequate for optimal management of prostate cancer patients. While genomic classifiers have improved patient risk classification, the multifocality and heterogeneity of prostate cancer can confound pre-treatment assessment. The objective was to investigate the association of multiparametric (mp)MRI quantitative features with prostate cancer risk gene expression profiles in mpMRI-guided biopsies tissues.Global gene expression profiles were generated from 17 mpMRI-directed diagnostic prostate biopsies using an Affimetrix platform. Spatially distinct imaging areas ('habitats') were identified on MRI/3D-Ultrasound fusion. Radiomic features were extracted from biopsy regions and normal appearing tissues. We correlated 49 radiomic features with three clinically available gene signatures associated with adverse outcome. The signatures contain genes that are over-expressed in aggressive prostate cancers and genes that are under-expressed in aggressive prostate cancers. There were significant correlations between these genes and quantitative imaging features, indicating the presence of prostate cancer prognostic signal in the radiomic features. Strong associations were also found between the radiomic features and significantly expressed genes. Gene ontology analysis identified specific radiomic features associated with immune/inflammatory response, metabolism, cell and biological adhesion. To our knowledge, this is the first study to correlate radiogenomic parameters with prostate cancer in men with MRI-guided biopsy.

Detecting Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

When prostate cancer is suspected, the prostate gland is biopsied with the aid of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). The sensitivity of prostatic biopsy is about 50%. The fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data with TRUS enables the targeted biopsy of suspicious areas. We studied whether this improves the detection of prostate cancer.

METHODS

168 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI after a previous negative biopsy. Suspicious lesions were assessed with the classification of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and biopsied in targeted fashion with the aid of fused MRI and TRUS. At the same sitting, a systematic biopsy with at least 12 biopsy cores was performed.

RESULTS

Prostate cancer was detected in 71 patients (42.3%; 95% CI, 35.05-49.82). The detection rate of fusion-assisted targeted biopsy was 19% (95% CI, 13.83-25.65), compared to 37.5% (95% CI, 30.54-45.02) with systematic biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was more commonly revealed by targeted biopsy (84.4%; 95% CI, 68.25-93.14) than by systematic biopsy (65.1%; 95% CI, 52.75-75.67). In 7 patients with normal MRI findings, cancer was detected by systematic biopsy alone. Compared to systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy had a higher overall detection rate (16.5% vs. 6.3%), a higher rate of infiltration per core (30% vs. 10%), and a higher rate of detection of poorly differentiated carcinoma (18.5% vs. 3%). Patients with negative biopsies did not undergo any further observation.

CONCLUSION

MRI/TRUS fusion-assisted targeted biopsy improves the detection rate of prostate cancer after a previous negative biopsy. Targeted biopsy is more likely to reveal clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; nevertheless, systematic biopsy should still be performed, even if the MRI findings are negative.

Should Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound Be Sampled During Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether supplemental biopsy of hypoechoic ultrasound lesions (HUL) incidentally found during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-targeted prostate biopsy results in improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection.

METHODS

Patients underwent MRI-TRUS-targeted biopsy as part of an ongoing prospective trial from August 2007 to February 2015. For men with HUL, the biopsy pathology of HUL and MRI lesions was classified according to the updated 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system. The detection of PCa by MRI-targeted biopsy with and without HUL biopsy was compared.

RESULTS

Of 1260 men in the trial, 106 underwent biopsy of 119 HULs. PCa was diagnosed in 52 out of 106 men (49%) by biopsy of either MRI lesions or HUL. Biopsy of HUL in addition to MRI lesions resulted in 4 additional diagnoses of high-grade (ISUP grades 3-5) PCa versus biopsy of MRI lesions alone (20 vs 16 men, P = .046). Three of these cases were upgraded from lower grade (ISUP grades 1-2) PCa on MRI-guided biopsy alone, and only 1 case (1% of cohort) was diagnosed that would have been missed by MRI-guided biopsy alone. Supplemental biopsy of HUL did not change the PCa risk category in 96% (102 out of 106) of men with HUL.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental biopsy of HUL yields a small increase in the detection of higher grade PCa as compared with biopsy of MRI lesions alone. As upgrading is rare, routinely screening for HUL during MRI-targeted biopsy remains controversial.

Diagnostic Value of Different Systematic Prostate Biopsy Methods in the Detection of Prostate Cancer with Ultrasonographic Hypoechoic Lesions--A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess if a less extended biopsy in the transperineal approach is sufficient for detection of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with hypoechoic lesions.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 167 consecutive patients with prostate hypoechoic lesion and who underwent transperineal ultrasound (TPUS)-guided 12-core and hypoechoic lesion core biopsy between January 2012 and February 2013.

RESULTS

PC was detected in 64.1% (107/167) of patients. The PC detection rate of the 12-core prostate biopsy scheme was the highest, but when including the hypoechoic lesion core, there was no difference between the 6- and 12-core schemes (all p > 0.05), irrespective of prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen levels (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A more limited biopsy scheme could be sufficient for the detection of PC if the hypoechoic lesion is sampled.

Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration

Prebiopsy multiparametric prostate MRI (mp-MRI), followed by transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-G) target biopsies (TB) of the prostate is a key combination for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancers (CSPCa), to avoid prostate cancer (PCa) overtreatment. Several techniques are available for guiding TB to the suspicious mp-MRI targets, but the simplest, cheapest, and easiest to learn is “cognitive,” with visual registration of MRI and TRUS data. This review details the successive steps of the method (target detection, mp-MRI reporting, intermodality fusion, TRUS guidance to target, sampling simulation, sampling, TRUS session reporting, and quality insurance), how to optimize each, and the global indications of mp-MRI-targeted biopsies. We discuss the diagnostic yield of visually-registered TB in comparison with conventional biopsy, and TB performed using other registration methods.

Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this diagnostic meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection using anatomic T2-weighted imaging combined with two functional techniques: diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to February 3, 2012. We included diagnostic accuracy studies using a combination of T2-weighted imaging, DWI, and DCE-MRI to detect prostate cancer with histopathologic data from prostatectomy or biopsy as the reference standard. The methodologic quality was assessed with version 2 of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool by two independent reviewers. Sensitivity and specificity of all studies were calculated from 2 × 2 tables, and the results were plotted in a hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic plot.

RESULTS

Seven studies that met the inclusion criteria (526 patients) could be analyzed. The pooled data showed a specificity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.92) and sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81) for prostate cancer detection, with negative predictive values (NPVs) ranging from 0.65 to 0.94. Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference between the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The high specificity with variable but high NPVs and sensitivities implies a potential role for multiparametric MRI in detecting prostate cancer.

Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer?

Purpose

To investigate the relationship of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings with the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted retrospectively by analyzing the data for 970 patients who underwent prostate biopsies. Gleason scores and other clinical variables were compared between PCa patients with and without hypoechoic lesions on TRUS.

Results

Of the 970 patients, PCa was diagnosed in 291 (30%). Of these, high-grade PCa (Gleason score of 7 or more) was diagnosed in 190 (65%). The cancer detection rate was higher in patients with hypoechoic lesions (43.9%) than in those without hypoechoic lesions (21.4%, p<0.001). High-grade PCa was detected more often in patients with hypoechoic lesions than in those without hypoechoic lesions (p<0.001). Independent predictors for high-grade PCa by logistic regression analysis included hypoechoic lesions on TRUS and abnormal digital rectal examination findings.

Conclusions

Patients with PCa who had hypoechoic lesions on TRUS had more aggressive pathological disease than did those without lesions. Therefore, hypoechoic lesions on TRUS could be a marker for clinically significant PCa.

Prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density cutoff points among Indonesian population suspected for prostate cancer

Purpose:

Racial differences exist in the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa). Although many studies have looked at the performance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density (PSAD) in the detection of PCa, only a few have looked at it in relation to Indonesian men. The objective of this study is to find out better PSA and PSAD cutoff point in the detection of PCa in Indonesian men.

Methods:

A total of 404 consecutive Indonesian men underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa from 2008 to 2011. The biopsy criteria include one or more of the following: serum PSA more than 10 ng/mL, PSAD more than 0.15 if PSA 4–10 ng/mL, hypoechoic lesion during transrectal sonography and/or abnormal digital rectal examination.

Results:

Forty five out of 404 (11.1%) had positive biopsies. The mean age, prostate volume, PSA and PSAD were respectively 64.06 years, 43.03 mL, 45.59 ng/mL and 1.15. Of the 404, 131 cases (32.4%) were confirmed to be urinary retention. Positive urine culture found in 182 cases (45%). The cutoff point to detect PCa as estimated by the receiver operating characteristics was 6.95 ng/mL for PSA (sensitivity 97.8%, specificity 19.6%) and 0.7072 for PSAD (sensitivity 62.2%, specificity 78.7%). Positive predictive value for this PSA and PSAD cutoff point were 11.6% and 27.5% respectively (P=0.004 and P=0.000). There was a significant correlation between hypoechoic lesion and positive biopsy results (P =0.000). Urinary retention elevates PSA cutoff point to 14.55 (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 50%), while positive urine culture alters almost no PSA cutoff elevation.

Conclusions:

PSA and PSAD cutoff point for Indonesian men in this series is relatively different from international consensus. Furthermore, these data show that PSA and PSAD cutoff point must be adjusted to racial variation to discriminate between malignant and benign disease. Urinary retention is a significant factor for PSA cutoff increase.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Is a visible (hypoechoic) lesion at biopsy an independent predictor of prostate cancer outcome?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic implications of the sonographic appearance of prostate cancers. All patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer between January 2003 and July 2004 (and at least 5 years of follow-up) were selected retrospectively. After exclusions, 101 patients constituted our study population and were divided into isoechoic (or nonvisible) and hypoechoic (or visible) lesion. The clinical outcomes of these two groups were compared. The outcomes for the two groups were significantly different (p < 0.01). For nonvisible lesions, 37 of the 41 patients (90.2%) had no disease relapse and 2 (4.9%) had biochemical failure. For the visible lesions, 37 of the 60 (61.6%) patients were free of recurrence, 7 (11.7%) had systemic metastases and 10 (16.7%) died of complications related to prostate cancer. Our data show that patients with nonvisible prostate cancer had significantly better outcomes than patients with visible lesions during a five-year period of evaluation.

Applications of transrectal ultrasound in prostate cancer

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) was first developed in the 1970s. TRUS-guided biopsy, under local anaesthetic and prophylactic antibiotics, is now the most widely accepted method to diagnose prostate cancer. However, the sensitivity and specificity of greyscale TRUS in the detection of prostate cancer is low. Prostate cancer most commonly appears as a hypoechoic focal lesion in the peripheral zone on TRUS but the appearances are variable with considerable overlap with benign lesions. Because of the low accuracy of greyscale TRUS, TRUS-guided biopsies have become established in the acquisition of systematic biopsies from standard locations. The number of systematic biopsies has increased over the years, with 10-12 cores currently accepted as the minimum standard. This article describes the technique of TRUS and biopsy and its complications. Novel modalities including contrast-enhanced modes and elastography as well as fusion techniques for increasing the sensitivity of TRUS-guided prostate-targeted biopsies are discussed along with their role in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator

BACKGROUND

Prediction models need external validation to assess their value beyond the setting where the model was derived from.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the external validity of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com) for the probability of having a positive prostate biopsy (P(posb)).

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The ERSPC risk calculator was based on data of the initial screening round of the ERSPC section Rotterdam and validated in 1825 and 531 men biopsied at the initial screening round in the Finnish and Swedish sections of the ERSPC respectively. P(posb) was calculated using serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), outcome of digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound and ultrasound assessed prostate volume.

MEASUREMENTS

The external validity was assessed for the presence of cancer at biopsy by calibration (agreement between observed and predicted outcomes), discrimination (separation of those with and without cancer), and decision curves (for clinical usefulness).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Prostate cancer was detected in 469 men (26%) of the Finnish cohort and in 124 men (23%) of the Swedish cohort. Systematic miscalibration was present in both cohorts (mean predicted probability 34% versus 26% observed, and 29% versus 23% observed, both p<0.001). The areas under the curves were 0.76 and 0.78, and substantially lower for the model with PSA only (0.64 and 0.68 respectively). The model proved clinically useful for any decision threshold compared with a model with PSA only, PSA and DRE, or biopsying all men. A limitation is that the model is based on sextant biopsies results.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERSPC risk calculator discriminated well between those with and without prostate cancer among initially screened men, but overestimated the risk of a positive biopsy. Further research is necessary to assess the performance and applicability of the ERSPC risk calculator when a clinical setting is considered rather than a screening setting.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the evaluation of patients with prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is a common tumor among men, with increasing diagnosis at an earlier stage and a lower volume of disease because of screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The need for imaging of the prostate stems from a desire to optimize treatment strategy on a patient and tumor-specific level. The major goals of prostate imaging are (1) staging of known cancer, (2) determination of tumor aggressiveness, (3) diagnosis of cancer in patients who have elevated PSA but a negative biopsy, (4) treatment planning, and (5) the evaluation of therapy response. This article concentrates on the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the evaluation of patients who have prostate cancer and how it might be used to help achieve the above goals. Various dynamic contrast enhancement approaches (quantitative/semiquantitative/qualitative, high temporal versus high spatial resolution) are summarized with reference to the relevant strengths and compromises of each approach.

Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility

OBJECTIVES

To test the technique and feasibility of translating tumor suspicious region maps in the prostate, obtained by multimodality, anatomic, and functional 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to 32-channel coil, T2-weighted (T2-w), 3T MR images, for directing MR-guided biopsies. Furthermore, to evaluate the practicability of MR-guided biopsy on a 3T MR scanner using a 32-channel coil and a MR-compatible biopsy device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients with a high prostate-specific antigen (>4.0 ng/mL) and at least 2 prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies of the prostate underwent an endorectal coil 3T MRI, which included T2-w, diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. From these multimodality images, tumor suspicious regions (TSR) were determined. The 3D localization of these TSRs within the prostatic gland was translated to the T2-w MR images of a subsequent 32-channel coil 3T MRI. These were then biopsied under 3T MR guidance.

RESULTS

In all patients, TSRs could be identified and accurately translated to subsequent 3T MR images and biopsied under MR guidance. Median MR biopsy procedure time was 35 minutes. Of the 21 patients, 8 (38%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, 6 (29%) had evidence of prostatitis, 6 (29%) had combined inflammatory and atrophic changes, and only 1 (5%) patient had no identifiable pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodality, 3T MRI determined TSRs could effectively be translated to T2-weighted images, to be used for MR biopsies. 3T MR-guided biopsy based on these translated TSRs was feasible, performed in a clinical useful time, and resulted in a high number of positive results.

The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam

BACKGROUND

The value of digital rectal examination (DRE) as a screening test for prostate cancer (PC) is controversial in the current prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) the additional value of a suspicious DRE for the detection of PC in men with an elevated PSA level in subsequent screenings and (2) the tumour characteristics of PCs detected in men with a suspicious DRE.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Within the screening study, from 1997-2006 men aged 55-75 years were invited for an every 4-yr PSA determination. A PSA level > or =3.0ng/ml prompted a DRE and a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, lateralized sextant biopsy. Throughout the three screenings of the ERSPC, Rotterdam, 5040 biopsy sessions were evaluated.

MEASUREMENTS

We determined the positive predictive values (PPVs) of a suspicious DRE and normal DRE, which entailed, respectively, the proportion of PCs detected in men with a suspicious DRE or normal DRE divided by, respectively, all biopsied men with a suspicious DRE or normal DRE.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At initial screening, the PPV of a suspicious DRE, in conjunction with an elevated PSA level, to detect PC was 48.6% compared to 22.4% for men with a normal DRE. Both PPVs decreased in consecutive screens: respectively, 29.9% versus 17.1% (screen 2) and 21.2% versus 18.2% (screen 3). Respectively, 71.0% (p<0.001), 68.8% (p<0.001), and 85.7% (p=0.002) of all PCs with a Gleason score >7 were detected in men with a suspicious DRE at screens 1, 2, and 3. A limitation is that only biopsied men were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

At initial and subsequent screenings, the chance of having cancer at biopsy was higher in men with a suspicious DRE compared to men with a normal DRE (to a lesser extent in subsequent screenings), and the combination of a PSA level > or =3.0ng/ml with a suspicious DRE resulted in detecting significantly more PCs with Gleason score >7. DRE may be useful in more selective screening procedures to decrease unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce mortality and increase a person's quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. Much of this debate is due to the limited availability of high quality research and the influence of false-positive or false-negative results generated by use of the diagnostic techniques such as the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer mortality and has an impact on quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases (PROSTATE register, CENTRAL the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT and the NHS EED) were searched electronically in addition to hand searching of specific journals and bibliographies in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of screening versus no screening or routine care for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The search identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full text review. From these 99 citations, two randomised controlled trials were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials with a total of 55,512 participants were included; however, both trials had methodological weaknesses. Re-analysis using intention-to-screen and meta-analysis of results from the two randomised controlled trials indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer mortality between men randomised for prostate cancer screening and controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.80-1.29). Neither study assessed the effect of prostate cancer screening on quality of life, all-cause mortality or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given that only two randomised controlled trials were included, and the high risk of bias of both trials, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the routine use of mass, selective or opportunistic screening compared to no screening for reducing prostate cancer mortality. Currently, no robust evidence from randomised controlled trials is available regarding the impact of screening on quality of life, harms of screening, or its economic value. Results from two ongoing large scale multicentre randomised controlled trials that will be available in the next several years are required to make evidence-based decisions regarding prostate cancer screening.