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

Role of MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. In this review, we will explore the incorporation of MRI into active surveillance protocols, detailing its impact on clinical decision-making and patient management and discussing how it aligns with current guidelines and practice patterns. The role of MRI in this patient population continues to evolve over time, and we will discuss some of the recent advancements in the field and highlight potential areas for future research endeavors.

Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

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

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

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

Same-day repeatability and Between-Sequence reproducibility of Mean ADC in PI-RADS lesions

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess repeatability after repositioning (inter-scan), intra-rater, inter-rater and inter-sequence variability of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in MRI-detected prostate lesions.

METHOD

Forty-three patients with suspicion for prostate cancer were included and received a clinical prostate bi-/multiparametric MRI examination with repeat scans of the T2-weighted and two DWI-weighted sequences (ssEPI and rsEPI). Two raters (R1 and R2) performed single-slice, 2D regions of interest (2D-ROIs) and 3D-segmentation-ROIs (3D-ROIs). Mean bias, corresponding limits of agreement (LoA), mean absolute difference, within-subject coefficient of variation (CoV) and repeatability/reproducibility coefficient (RC/RDC) were calculated. Bradley & Blackwood test was used for variance comparison. Linear mixed models (LMM) were used to account for multiple lesions per patient.

RESULTS

Inter-scan repeatability, intra-rater and inter-sequence reproducibility analysis of ADC showed no significant bias. 3D-ROIs demonstrated significantly less variability than 2D-ROIs (p < 0.01). Inter-rater comparison demonstrated small significant systematic bias of 57 × 10-6 mm2/s for 3D-ROIs (p < 0.001). Intra-rater RC, with the lowest variation, was 145 and 189 × 10-6 mm2/s for 3D- and 2D-ROIs, respectively. For 3D-ROIs of ssEPI, RCs and RDCs were 190-198 × 10-6 mm2/s for inter-scan, inter-rater and inter-sequence variation. No significant differences were found for inter-scan, inter-rater and inter-sequence variability.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-scanner setting, single-slice ADC measurements showed considerable variation, which may be lowered using 3D-ROIs. For 3D-ROIs, we propose a cut-off of ∼ 200 × 10-6 mm2/s for differences introduced by repositioning, rater or sequence effects. The results suggest that follow-up measurements should be possible by different raters or sequences.

Stability of Multi-Parametric Prostate MRI Radiomic Features to Variations in Segmentation

Stability analysis remains a fundamental step in developing a successful imaging biomarker to personalize oncological strategies. This study proposes an in silico contour generation method for simulating segmentation variations to identify stable radiomic features. Ground-truth annotation provided for the whole prostate gland on the multi-parametric MRI sequences (T2w, ADC, and SUB-DCE) were perturbed to mimic segmentation differences observed among human annotators. In total, we generated 15 synthetic contours for a given image-segmentation pair. One thousand two hundred twenty-four unfiltered/filtered radiomic features were extracted applying Pyradiomics, followed by stability assessment using ICC(1,1). Stable features identified in the internal population were then compared with an external population to discover and report robust features. Finally, we also investigated the impact of a wide range of filtering strategies on the stability of features. The percentage of unfiltered (filtered) features that remained robust subjected to segmentation variations were T2w-36% (81%), ADC-36% (94%), and SUB-43% (93%). Our findings suggest that segmentation variations can significantly impact radiomic feature stability but can be mitigated by including pre-filtering strategies as part of the feature extraction pipeline.

Quantification of cross-vendor variation in ADC measurements in vendor-specific prostate MRI-protocols

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the variability of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) and test if there were statistically significant differences in ADC between MRI systems and sequences.

METHOD

With a two-chamber cylindrical ADC phantom with fixed ADC values (1,000 and 1,600x10^-6 mm²/s) a single-shot (ss) Echo Planar Imaging (EPI), a multi-shot EPI, a reduced field of view DWI (zoom) and a Turbo Spin Echo DWI sequence were tested in six MRI systems from three vendors at 1.5 T and 3 T. Technical parameters were according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1. ADC maps were calculated by vendor specific algorithms. Absolute and relative differences in ADC from the phantom-ADC were calculated and differences between sequences were tested.

RESULTS

At 3 T absolute differences from phantom given ADC (∼1,000 and ∼ 1,600x10^-6 mm²/s) were -83 - 42x10^-6 mm²/s (-8.3%-4.2%) and -48 - 15x10^-6 mm²/s (-3%-0.9%), respectively and at 1.5 T absolute differences were -81 - 26x10^-6 mm²/s (-2.6%-8.1%) and -74 - 67x10^-6 mm²/s (-4.6%-4.2%), respectively. Significant statistical differences in ADC measurements were identified between vendors in all sequences except for ssEPI and zoom at 3 T in the 1,600x10^-6 mm²/s phantom chamber. Significant differences were also identified between ADC measurements at 1.5 T and 3 T in some of the sequences and vendors, but not all.

CONCLUSION

The variation of ADC between different MRI systems and prostate specific DWI sequences is limited in this phantom study and without apparent clinical relevance. However, prospective multicenter studies of prostate cancer patients are needed for further investigation.

Time series radiomics for the prediction of prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance

Serial MRI is an essential assessment tool in prostate cancer (PCa) patients enrolled on active surveillance (AS). However, it has only moderate sensitivity for predicting histopathological tumour progression at follow-up, which is in part due to the subjective nature of its clinical reporting and variation among centres and readers. In this study, we used a long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN) to develop a time series radiomics (TSR) predictive model that analysed longitudinal changes in tumour-derived radiomic features across 297 scans from 76 AS patients, 28 with histopathological PCa progression and 48 with stable disease. Using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), we found that an LSTM-based model combining TSR and serial PSA density (AUC 0.86 [95% CI: 0.78-0.94]) significantly outperformed a model combining conventional delta-radiomics and delta-PSA density (0.75 [0.64-0.87]; p = 0.048) and achieved comparable performance to expert-performed serial MRI analysis using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system (0.84 [0.76-0.93]; p = 0.710). The proposed TSR framework, therefore, offers a feasible quantitative tool for standardising serial MRI assessment in PCa AS. It also presents a novel methodological approach to serial image analysis that can be used to support clinical decision-making in multiple scenarios, from continuous disease monitoring to treatment response evaluation. KEY POINTS: •LSTM RNN can be used to predict the outcome of PCa AS using time series changes in tumour-derived radiomic features and PSA density. •Using all available TSR features and serial PSA density yields a significantly better predictive performance compared to using just two time points within the delta-radiomics framework. •The concept of TSR can be applied to other clinical scenarios involving serial imaging, setting out a new field in AI-driven radiology research.

Repeat MRI during active surveillance: natural history of prostatic lesions and upgrading rates

OBJECTIVES

To assess upgrading rates in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) after serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 558 patients. Five different criteria for mpMRI progression were used: 1) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score increase; 2) a lesion size increase; 3) an extraprostatic extension score increase; 4) overall mpMRI progression; and 5) the number of criteria met for mpMRI progression (0 vs 1 vs 2-3). In addition, two definitions of PCa upgrading were evaluated: 1) International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) ≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 and 2) ISUP GG ≥ 3. Estimated annual percent changes methodology was used to show the temporal trends of mpMRI progression criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI progression criteria were also analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models tested PCa upgrading rates.

RESULTS

Lower rates over time for all mpMRI progression criteria were observed. The NPV of serial mpMRI scans ranged from 90.5% to 93.5% (ISUP GG≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 PCa upgrading) and from 98% to 99% (ISUP GG≥3 PCa upgrading), depending on the criteria used for mpMRI progression. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used to substratify those patients who would be able to skip a prostate biopsy. In multivariable logistic regression models assessing PCa upgrading rates, all five mpMRI progression criteria achieved independent predictor status.

CONCLUSION

During AS, approximately 27% of patients experience mpMRI progression at first repeat MRI. However, the rates of mpMRI progression decrease over time at subsequent mpMRI scans. Patients with stable mpMRI findings and with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/mL could safely skip surveillance biopsies. Conversely, patients who experience mpMRI progression should undergo a prostate biopsy.