Does Abstinence From Ejaculation Before Prostate MRI Improve Evaluation of the Seminal Vesicles?

Strategies for improving image quality in prostate MRI

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the cornerstone in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), offering superior detection capabilities while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Despite its critical role, global disparities in MRI diagnostic performance persist, stemming from variations in image quality and radiologist expertise. This manuscript reviews the challenges and strategies for enhancing image quality in prostate MRI, spanning patient preparation, MRI unit optimization, and radiology team engagement. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are pivotal, emphasizing standardized protocols, meticulous patient evaluation, MRI unit workflow, and radiology team performance. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) advancements offer promising avenues for improving image quality and reducing acquisition times. The Prostate-Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system emerges as a valuable tool for assessing MRI image quality. A comprehensive approach addressing technical, procedural, and interpretative aspects is essential to ensure consistent and reliable prostate MRI outcomes.

Prostate Cancer Local Staging with Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Accurate determination of the local stage of prostate cancer is crucial for treatment planning and prognosis. The primary objective of local staging is to distinguish between organ-confined and locally advanced disease, with the latter carrying a worse clinical prognosis. The presence of locally advanced disease features of prostate cancer, such as extra-prostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margin, can impact the choice of treatment. Over the past decade, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become the preferred imaging modality for the local staging of prostate cancer and has been shown to provide accurate information on the location and extent of disease. It has demonstrated superior performance compared to staging based on traditional clinical nomograms. Despite being a relatively new technique, mpMRI has garnered considerable attention and ongoing investigations. Therefore, in this review, we will discuss the current use of mpMRI on prostate cancer local staging.

State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. In addition to methods such as prostate-specific antigen test, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging has an important role for accurate and reproducible diagnosis. However, guidance in targeted biopsies and recent use in determining localization for treatment increase its importance. Due to technical difficulties, patient tolerance, and differences in interpretation, the prostate imaging reporting and data system recommends preparations for the patient and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. However, techniques continue to be developed to improve the diagnosis rate and image quality. In our article, patient preparation before imaging and techniques were tried to be discussed in detail. In addition, current approaches in biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radiomics and new techniques such as T1 and T2 mapping will be mentioned.

Staging accuracy of MRI of the prostate with special reference to the influence of the time of last ejaculation on the detection of seminal vesicle invasion

AIM

To evaluate the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PIRADS V2.1) criteria for seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and examine whether the timing of last ejaculation influences the detection of SVI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 68 patients (34 with SVI, 34 without SVI, matching groups by age and prostate volume) who underwent PIRADS V2.1-compliant multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 34 at 1.5 T, 34 at 3 T). Before the examination, the time of last ejaculation (38/68 ≤ 5 days, 30/68 > 5 days) was collected via a questionnaire. The five PIRADS V2.1 criteria for SVI with subsequent overall assessment were evaluated retrospectively by two independent examiners (examiner 1 with >10 years of experience, examiner 2 with 6 months of experience) in a single-blinded fashion for all patients using a questionnaire and a six-point scale (0 = no, 1 = very likely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = possible, 4 = probable, 5 = certain).

RESULTS

E1 achieved high specificity (100%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 100%) in the overall assessment, independent of the time of last ejaculation (sensitivity = 76.5%, negative predictive value [NPV] = 81%). The area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.882; for E2, it was 0.765. At ≤5 days, the AUC values of E1 and E2 differed significantly (0.867 versus 0.681, p=0.016), as did the diffusion restriction criterion (0.833 versus 0.681, p=0.028). E1 showed high AUC values independent of time. E2 had better values for all criteria at >5 days than at ≤5 days. There were no significant differences between the examiners in all observations at >5 days.

CONCLUSION

The PIRADS V2.1 criteria are well suited for an experienced examiner to detect SVI independent of time point. An inexperienced examiner will benefit from patients being abstinent >5 days prior to MRI.

[Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v 2.1: Overview and Critical Points]

The technical parameters and imaging interpretation criteria of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are updated in PI-RADS v2.1. These changes have been an expected improvement for prostate cancer evaluation, although some issues remain unsolved, and new issues have been raised. In this review, a brief overview of PI-RADS v2.1 is and several critical points are discussed as follows: the need for more detailed protocols of mpMRI, lack of validation of the revised transition zone interpretation criteria, the need for clarification for the revised diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria, anterior fibromuscular stroma and central zone assessment, assessment of background signal and tumor aggressiveness, changes in the structured report, the need for the parameters for imaging quality and performance control, and indications for expansion of the system to include other indications.

Comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI for the detection of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in biopsy naïve patients

PURPOSE

To compare biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) staging accuracy in assessing extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI).

METHOD

Biopsy-naïve patients undergoing 3 T-MRI before radical prostatectomy for clinically significant prostate cancer were included in this single-centre retrospective study. Two uroradiologists separately evaluated bpMRI and mpMRI for presence of ECE and SVI using a 5-point Likert scale (1: ECE/SVI highly unlikely, 5: ECE/SVI highly likely).

RESULTS

110 men of median age 63 years and PSA 8.5 ng/mL were included. ECE and SVI was confirmed histologically in 71/110 (64.5 %) and 18/110 (16.4 %) patients, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI versus mpMRI for predicting ECE was 59.1 % and 87.2 % versus 66.2 % and 84.6 %, respectively. For SVI detection, the sensitivity and specificity for bpMRI versus mpMRI was 66.7 % and 92.4 % versus 83.3 % and 97.8 %, respectively. At an optimal cut-off Likert score ≥3 for ECE prediction, mpMRI area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was 0.80 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.87) versus 0.78 (95 % CI 0.69-0.86) for bpMRI (p = 0.52) and for SVI, mpMRI AUC was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.84-0.96) versus 0.86 (95 % CI 0.78-0.92) for bpMRI (p = 0.02), respectively. Inter-reader agreement for both ECE and SVI prediction was substantial, with a marginally higher k-value for mpMRI (k range, 0.67-0.75) than bpMRI (k range, 0.65-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI was comparable for detection of ECE, however, mpMRI with contrast was superior for SVI detection and improved the inter-reader agreement.

mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol

The Working Group Uroradiology and Urogenital Diagnosis of the German Roentgen Society (DRG) revised and updated the recommendations for preparation and scanning protocol of the multiparametric MRI of the Prostate in a consensus process and harmonized it with the managing board of German Roentgen Society and Professional Association of the German Radiologist (BDR e. V.). These detailed recommendation define the referenced "validated quality standards" of the German S3-Guideline Prostate Cancer and describe in detail the topic 1. anamnestic datas, 2. termination of examinations and preparation of examinations, 3. examination protocol and 4. MRI-(in-bore)-biopsy. KEY POINTS:: · The recommendations for preparation and scanning protocol of the multiparametric MRI of the Prostate were revised and updated in a consensus process and harmonized with the managing board of German Roentgen Society (DRG) and Professional Asssociation of the German Radiologist (BDR).. · Detailed recommendations are given for topic 1. anamnestic datas, 2. termination and preparation of examinations, 3. examination protocoll and 4. MRI-(in-bore)-biopsy.. · These recommendations define the referenced "validated quality standards" of the German S3-Guideline Prostate Cancer.. CITATION FORMAT: · Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D et al. mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Examination Protocol. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 763 - 776.

Quality of Prostate MRI: Is the PI-RADS Standard Sufficient?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) published a set of minimum technical standards (MTS) to improve image quality and reduce variability in multiparametric prostate MRI. The effect of PIRADSv2 MTS on image quality has not been validated. We aimed to determine whether adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS improves study adequacy and perceived quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two prostate MRI examinations including T2 weighted (T2W) and diffusion weighted image (DWI) consecutively referred to our center from 62 different institutions within a 12-month period (September 2017 to September 2018) were included. Six readers assessed images as adequate or inadequate for use in PCa detection and a numerical image quality ranking was given using a 1-5 scale. The PI-RADSv2 MTS were synthesized into sets of seven and 10 rules for T2W and DWI, respectively. Image adherence was assessed using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata. Statistical analysis of survey results and image adherence was performed based on reader quality scoring (Kendall Rank tau-b) and reader adequate scoring (Wilcoxon test for association) for T2 and DWI quality assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 62 images, 52 (83%) T2W and 38 (61%) DWIs were rated to be adequate by a majority of readers. Reader adequacy scores showed no significant association with adherence to PI-RADSv2. There was a weak (tau-b = 0.22) but significant (p value = 0.01) correlation between adherence to PIRADSv2 MTS and image quality for T2W. Studies following all PI-RADSv2 T2W rules achieved a higher median average quality score (3.58 for 7/7 vs. 3.0 for <7/7, p = 0.012). No statistical relationship with PI-RADSv2 MTS adherence and DWI quality was found.

CONCLUSION

Among 62 sites performing prostate MRI, few were considered of high quality, but the majority were considered adequate. DWI showed considerably lower rates of adequate studies in the sample. Adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS did not increase the likelihood of having a qualitatively adequate T2W or DWI.

PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems

PI-RADS version 2.1 updates the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and revises the imaging interpretation criteria while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved, and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include the need for more detailed mpMRI protocols with optimization for 1.5-T and 3-T systems; lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications of the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone (CZ) assessment; the need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background changes in signal intensity in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS M category); inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; adjustments to the structured report template, including standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence).

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate is an excellent tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer, and it has widely been incorporated into clinical practice due to its excellent tissue contrast and image resolution. The aims of this article are to describe the prostate MR imaging technique for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer according to PI-RADS v2.1, as well as alternative sequences and basic aspects of patient preparation and MR imaging artifact avoidance.

Optimising prostate mpMRI: prepare for success

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now plays an essential role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. The increasing use of MRI before biopsy makes obtaining images of the highest quality vital. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) 2012 guidelines and subsequent Prostate Imaging -Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 recommendations in 2015 address the technical considerations for optimising MRI acquisition; however, the quality of the multiparametric sequences employed depends not only on the hardware and software utilised and scanning parameters selected, but also on patient-related factors, for which current guidance is lacking. Patient preparation factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, the presence of total hip replacement (THR), post-biopsy haemorrhage, and abstinence from ejaculation. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS v2, and this review aims to explore the key issues of patient preparation and their potential to further optimise the image quality of mpMRI.

PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI

Multiparametric (mp) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected prostate cancer. Performing mpMRI before biopsy offers several advantages including biopsy avoidance under certain clinical circumstances and targeting biopsy of suspicious lesions to enable the correct diagnosis. The success of the technique is heavily dependent on high-quality image acquisition, interpretation, and report communication, all areas addressed by previous versions of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations. Numerous studies have validated the approach, but the widespread adoption of PI-RADS version 2 has also highlighted inconsistencies and limitations, particularly relating to interobserver variability for evaluation of the transition zone. These limitations are addressed in the recently released version 2.1. In this article, we highlight the key changes proposed in PI-RADS v2.1 and explore the background reasoning and evidence for the recommendations.

Evaluation of seminal vesicle volume variability in patients receiving radiotherapy to the prostate

Introduction:

Prostate positional variability has been widely explored with seminal vesicle (SV) variability, coming into the forefront only in recent years. While planning target volume (PTV) margins and preparation protocols ameliorate the effects of bladder and rectum volume changes on prostate, studies on SV variation have looked at only position, not volume variability.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the inter-fraction volume variability of the VSs can exist in patients receiving radiotherapy to the prostate.

Method:

SV variability was investigated by comparing four on-treatment cone beam computer tomography scans to a planning computer tomography (CT) image for two patients receiving prostate radiotherapy. For each case, variation in volumes (cm3) was compared with intra-observer variation.

Results:

SV volume variability was seen in both patients, with the largest change in volume being 78·38%. This variance was considerably (between 2 and 10 times) larger than the measured intra-observer variance.

Conclusion:

This study identified the potential for daily SV volume variability in patients receiving prostate radiotherapy. Future large-scale studies are warranted to identify the extent of this motion and potential clinical impact. Evidence-informed PTV margins and possible SV volume control protocols may need to be adopted.

Multiparametric MRI - local staging of prostate cancer and beyond

Background Accurate local staging is critical for treatment planning and prognosis in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). The primary aim is to differentiate between organ-confined and locally advanced disease with the latter carrying a worse clinical prognosis. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is the imaging modality of choice for the local staging of PCa and has an incremental value in assessing pelvic nodal disease and bone involvement. It has shown superior performance compared to traditional staging based on clinical nomograms, and provides additional information on the site and extent of disease. MRI has a high specificity for diagnosing extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and lymph node (LN) metastases, however, sensitivity remains poor. As a result, extended pelvic LN dissection remains the gold standard for assessing pelvic nodal involvement, and there has been recent progress in developing advanced imaging techniques for more distal staging. Conclusions T2W-weighted imaging is the cornerstone for local staging of PCa. Imaging at 3T and incorporating both diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging can further increase accuracy. "Next generation" imaging including whole body MRI and PET-MRI imaging using prostate specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA), has shown promising for assessment of LN and bone involvement as compared to the traditional work-up using bone scintigraphy and body CT.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for MRI of Prostate Cancer: Can We Do Better?

OBJECTIVE. Although the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) has been widely adopted and is generally considered a success, it has clear limitations. The purpose of this article is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of PI-RADSv2 and discuss ways that it can be improved. CONCLUSION. PI-RADSv2 has improved standardization of acquisition and interpretation of prostate MR images. Although it improves the detection of clinically significant cancers, its subjectivity and intrareader variability limit its accuracy and reproducibility, causing concerns regarding its reliability.

Technique of Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate

Multiparametric MR imaging provides detailed anatomic assessment of the prostate as well as information that allows the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. To obtain high-quality MR imaging of the prostate, radiologists must understand sequence optimization to overcome commonly encountered technical challenges. This review discusses the techniques that are used in state-of-the-art MR imaging of the prostate, including imaging protocols, hardware considerations, and important aspects of patient preparation, with an emphasis on the recommendations provided in the prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 guidelines.

The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on seminal vesicle fluid volume and whole-prostate ADC as measured on prostate MRI

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively investigate the longitudinal effect of ejaculatory abstinence on MRI-measured seminal vesicle (SV) volume and whole-prostate ADC over consecutive days.

METHODS

15 healthy male volunteers (mean 35.9 years, range 27-53) underwent 3-T MRI at baseline and 1, 2 and 3 days post-ejaculation. Prostate and SV volumes were derived by volume segmentation and whole-gland apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated. A mixed-effects linear regression compared ADC values and prostate/seminal vesicle volumes in each volunteer between studies in a pairwise manner.

RESULTS

All subjects completed the four MRIs. Mean prostate volume was 22.45 cm3 (range 13.04-31.21 cm3), with no change between the four studies (p = 0.89-0.99). 13/15 subjects showed SV volume reduction from baseline to day 1, with group-mean decreasing from 6.45 to 4.80 cm3 (-25.6%, p < 0.001), and a significant reduction from baseline to day 2 (-18.1%, p = 0.002). There was a significant volume increase from both day 1 (+21.3%, p = 0.006) and day 2 (+10.2%, p = 0.022) to day 3 post-ejaculation. There was a significant reduction in ADC from 1.105 at baseline to 1.056 × 10-3 mm2/s at day 1 (mean -4.3%, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on SV volume was demonstrated. Significant reductions in SV volume and whole-gland ADC were observed post-ejaculation, supporting a 3-day period of abstinence before prostate MRI.

KEY POINTS

• Seminal vesicle volume significantly reduced 24 h post-ejaculation remaining reduced at day 2 • Seminal vesicle fluid volume significantly increased from day 1 to day 3 post-ejaculation • There was a significant reduction in whole-gland prostate ADC values day 1 post-ejaculation • 3-day abstinence from ejaculation is required to ensure maximal seminal vesicle distension.