Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Utility of dynamic contrast enhancement for clinically significant prostate cancer detection

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the association of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason Grade Group ≥2) and compare biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) nomograms.

Subjects/patients and methods

We identified a retrospective cohort of biopsy naïve patients who underwent pre-biopsy MRI separated by individual MRI series from 2018 to 2022. csPCa detection rates were calculated for patients with peripheral zone (PZ) lesions scored 3-5 on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with available DCE (annotated as - or +). bpMRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) (3 = 3-, 3+; 4 = 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) and mpMRI PIRADS (3 = 3-; 4 = 3+, 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) approaches were compared in multivariable logistic regression models. Nomograms for detection of csPCa and ≥GG3 PCa incorporating all biopsy naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI were generated based on available serum biomarkers [PHI, % free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or total PSA] and validated with an independent cohort.

Results

Patients (n = 1010) with highest PIRADS lesion in PZ were included in initial analysis with 127 (12.6%) classified as PIRADS 3+ (PIRADS 3 on bpMRI but PIRADS 4 on mpMRI). On multivariable analysis, PIRADS 3+ lesions were associated with higher csPCa rates compared to PIRADS 3- (3+ vs. 3-: OR 1.86, p = 0.024), but lower csPCa rates compared to PIRADS DWI 4 lesions (4 vs. 3+: OR 2.39, p < 0.001). csPCa rates were 19% (3-), 31% (3+), 41.5% (4-), 65.9% (4+), 62.5% (5-), and 92.3% (5+). bpMRI nomograms were non-inferior to mpMRI nomograms in the development (n = 1410) and independent validation (n = 353) cohorts. Risk calculators available at: https://rossnm1.shinyapps.io/MynMRIskCalculator/.

Conclusion

While DCE positivity by itself was associated with csPCa among patients with highest PIRADS lesions in the PZ, nomogram comparisons suggest that there is no significant difference in performance of bpMRI and mpMRI. bpMRI may be considered as an alternative to mpMRI for prostate cancer evaluation in many situations.

AI-based automated evaluation of image quality and protocol tailoring in patients undergoing MRI for suspected prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) application in a clinical setting to decide whether dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences are necessary in multiparametric prostate MRI.

METHODS

This study was approved by the institutional review board and requirement for study-specific informed consent was waived. A mobile app was developed to integrate AI-based image quality analysis into clinical workflow. An expert radiologist provided reference decisions. Diagnostic performance parameters (sensitivity and specificity) were calculated and inter-reader agreement was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fully automated evaluation was possible in 87% of cases, with the application reaching a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 100% in selecting patients for multiparametric MRI. In 2% of patients, the application falsely decided on omitting DCE. With a technician reaching a sensitivity of 29% and specificity of 98%, and resident radiologists reaching sensitivity of 29% and specificity of 93%, the use of the application allowed a significant increase in sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

The presented AI application accurately decides on a patient-specific MRI protocol based on image quality analysis, potentially allowing omission of DCE in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected prostate cancer. This could streamline workflow and optimize time utilization of healthcare professionals.

Biparametric vs. Multiparametric MRI in the Detection of Cancer in Transperineal Targeted-Biopsy-Proven Peripheral Prostate Cancer Lesions Classified as PI-RADS Score 3 or 3+1: The Added Value of ADC Quantification

BACKGROUND

Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) has an important role in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), by reducing the cost and duration of the procedure and adverse reactions. We assess the additional benefit of the ADC map in detecting prostate cancer (PCa). Additionally, we examine whether the ADC value correlates with the presence of clinically significant tumors (csPCa).

METHODS

104 peripheral lesions classified as PI-RADS v2.1 score 3 or 3+1 at the mpMRI underwent transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided targeted biopsy.

RESULTS

The lesions were classified as PI-RADS 3 or 3+1; at histopathology, 30 were adenocarcinomas, 21 of which were classified as csPCa. The ADC threshold that maximized the Youden index in order to predict the presence of a tumor was 1103 (95% CI (990, 1243)), with a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.59; both values were greater than those found using the contrast medium, which were 0.5 and 0.54, respectively. Similar results were also found with csPCa, where the optimal ADC threshold was 1096 (95% CI (988, 1096)), with a sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.59, compared to 0.49 and 0.59 observed in the mpMRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the possible use of a quantitative parameter (ADC value) in the risk stratification of csPCa, by reducing the number of biopsies and, therefore, the number of unwarranted diagnoses of PCa and the risk of overtreatment.

Benefit of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection depending on readers experience in prostate MRI

AIM

To investigate the relevance of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging (DCE) within multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) depending on reader experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with 3 T mpMRI and subsequent combined MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided targeted and systematic biopsy from January to September 2019 were included. All mpMRI examinations were read separately by two less experienced (R1; <500 prostate MRI) and two expert radiologists (R2; >5,000 prostate MRI) in consensus and blinded re-read as biparametric MRI (bpMRI). The primary endpoint was the performance comparison of mpMRI versus bpMRI of R1 and R2.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 124 patients had csPC (43%). The PI-RADS agreement of bpMRI and mpMRI was fair for R1 (κ = 0.373) and moderate for R2 (κ = 0.508). R1 assessed 11 csPC with PI-RADS ≤3 (20.8%) on mpMRI and 12 (22.6%) on bpMRI (R2: 1 [1.9%] and 6 [11.3%], respectively). Sensitivity for csPC of mpMRI was 79.3% (NPV 79.3%) for R1 and 98.1% (NPV 97.5%) for R2 (bpMRI: 77.4% [NVP 75.5%] and 86.8% [NPV 84.4%], respectively). Specificity of mpMRI for csPC was 59.2% for R1 and 54.9% for R2 (bpMRI: 52.1% and 53.5%, respectively). Overall accuracy of mpMRI was 79.8% for R1 compared to bpMRI 66.9% (p=0.017; R2: 87.1% and 81.5%; p=0.230).

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI benefits from reader experience. Less experienced readers missed a relevant proportion of csPC with mpMRI and even more with bpMRI. The overall performance of expert readers was comparable for mpMRI and bpMRI but DCE enabled detection of some further ISUP 2 PC.

Abbreviated MRI Protocols in the Abdomen and Pelvis

Abbreviated MRI (AMRI) protocols rely on the acquisition of a limited number of sequences tailored to a specific question. The main objective of AMRI protocols is to reduce exam duration and costs, while maintaining an acceptable diagnostic performance. AMRI is of increasing interest in the radiology community; however, challenges limiting clinical adoption remain. In this review, we will address main abdominal and pelvic applications of AMRI in the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate, including diagnostic performance, pitfalls, limitations, and cost effectiveness will also be discussed. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A nomogram based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop and validate a model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-naïve patients.

METHOD

This retrospective study included 324 patients who underwent bpMRI and MRI targeted fusion biopsy (MRGB) and/or systematic biopsy, of them 217 were randomly assigned to the training group and 107 were assigned to the validation group. We assessed the diagnostic performance of three bpMRI-based scorings in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Subsequently, 3 models (Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3) combining bpMRI scorings with clinical variables were constructed and compared with each other using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). The statistical significance of differences among these models was evaluated using DeLong's test.

RESULTS

In the training group, 68 of 217 patients had pathologically proven csPCa. The sensitivity and specificity for Scoring 1 were 64.7% (95% CI 52.2%-75.9%) and 80.5% (95% CI 73.3%-86.6%); for Scoring 2 were 86.8% (95% CI 76.4%-93.8%) and 73.2% (95% CI 65.3%-80.1%); and for Scoring 3 were 61.8% (95% CI 49.2%-73.3%) and 80.5% (95% CI 73.3%-86.6%), respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that scorings based on bpMRI, age, and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) were independent predictors of csPCa. The AUCs for the 3 models were 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), respectively. Model 2 showed significantly higher performance than Model 1 (P = 0.03) and Model 3 (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

All three scorings had favorite diagnostic accuracy. While in conjunction with age and PSAD the prediction power was significantly improved, and the Model 2 that based on Scoring 2 yielded the highest performance.

Optimal length and temporal resolution of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for the differentiation between prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone tissue

The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the detection of prostate cancer is controversial. There are currently insufficient peer reviewed published data or expert consensus to support routine adoption of DCE-MRI for clinical use. Thus, the objective of this study was to explore the optimal temporal resolution and measurement length for DCE-MRI to differentiate cancerous from normal prostate tissue of the peripheral zone of the prostate by non-parametric MRI analysis and to compare with a quantitative MRI analysis. Predictors of interest were onset time, relative signal intensity (RSI), wash-in slope, peak enhancement, wash-out and wash-out slope determined from non-parametric characterisation of DCE-MRI intensity-time profiles. The discriminatory power was estimated from C-statistics based on cross validation. We analyzed 54 patients with 97 prostate tissue specimens (47 prostate cancer, 50 normal prostate tissue) of the peripheral zone, mean age 63.8 years, mean prostate-specific antigen 18.9 ng/mL and mean of 10.5 days between MRI and total prostatectomy. When comparing prostate cancer tissue with normal prostate tissue, median RSI was 422% vs 330%, and wash-in slope 0.870 vs 0.539. The peak enhancement of 67 vs 42 was higher with prostate cancer tissue, while wash-out (-30% vs -23%) and wash-out slope (-0.037 vs -0.029) were lower, and the onset time (32 seconds) was comparable. The optimal C-statistics was 0.743 for temporal resolution of 8.0 seconds and measurement length of 2.5 minutes compared with 0.656 derived from a quantitative MRI analysis. This study provides evidence that the use of a non-parametric approach instead of a more established parametric approach resulted in greater precision to differentiate cancerous from normal prostate tissue of the peripheral zone of the prostate.

Literature review: Imaging in prostate cancer

Imaging plays an increasingly important role in the detection and characterization of prostate cancer (PC). This review summarizes the key conventional and advanced imaging modalities including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and tries to instruct clinicians in finding the best image modality depending on the patient`s PC-stage. We aim to give an overview of the different image modalities and their benefits and weaknesses in imaging PC. Emphasis is put on primary prostate cancer detection and staging as well as on recurrent and castration resistant prostate cancer. Results from studies using various imaging techniques are discussed and compared. For the different stages of PC, advantages and disadvantages of the different imaging modalities are discussed. Moreover, this review aims to give an outlook about upcoming, new imaging modalities and how they might be implemented in the future into clinical routine. Imaging patients suffering from PC should aim for exact diagnosis, accurate detection of PC lesions and should mirror the true tumor burden. Imaging should lead to the best patient treatment available in the current PC-stage and should avoid unnecessary therapeutic interventions. New image modalities such as long axial field of view PET/CT with photon-counting CT and radiopharmaceuticals like androgen receptor targeting radiopharmaceuticals open up new possibilities. In conclusion, PC imaging is growing and each image modality is aiming for improvement.

Could Biparametric MRI Replace Multiparametric MRI in the Management of Prostate Cancer?

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a worldwide epidemiological problem, since it is one of the most prevalent types of neoplasia among men, and the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths, after lung and colorectal tumors. Unfortunately, the early stages of PCa have a wide range of unspecific symptoms. For these reasons, early diagnosis and accurate evaluation of suspicious lesions are crucial. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is currently the imaging modality of choice for diagnostic screening and local staging of PCa, but also has a leading role in guiding biopsies and in treatment biparametric MRI (bpMRI) could partially replace mpMRI due to its lack of adverse reactions caused by contrast agents, relatively lower costs, and shorter acquisition time. Further, 31 relevant articles regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the aforementioned imaging techniques were scanned. As a result, while bpMRI has comparable accuracy in detecting PCa, its roles in the other steps of PCa management are limited.

Impact of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in 1.5 T versus 3 T MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection

PURPOSE

This study analyzes the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) of the prostate on 1.5 T and 3 T examinations in patients within PI-RADS category 4.

METHODS

In this retrospective, bi-centric, cohort study all consecutive patients classified as PI-RADS 4 in mpMRI with 100 verified prostate cancers (PCa) in subsequent MRI/US-guided fusion biopsy were included for 1.5 T and 3 T, each. PCa detection in index lesions (IL) upgraded to PI-RADS 4 based on positive DCE findings was compared between 1.5 T and 3 T. Secondary objectives are subgroup analysis of PZ lesions and comparison of ISUP grade group distribution between 1.5 T and 3 T.

RESULTS

In total, 293 patients within PI-RADS category 4, including 152 (mean 66 ± 8y; median PSA 6.4 ng/ml;116 PZ IL) in the 1.5 T group and 141 (mean 65 ± 8y; median PSA 7.2 ng/ml;100 PZ IL) in the 3 T group were included. Overall amount of PCa (66 % vs 71 %; p = 0.346) and portion of upgraded IL (28 % vs 21 %; p = 0.126) did not differ significantly. At 1.5 T PCa detection was higher in upgraded PZ lesions compared to 3 T (23 % vs 14 %; p = 0.048). The amount of upgraded PZ lesions with ISUP grade group 2-5 PCa was significantly higher at 1.5 T versus 3 T (13.8 % vs 4.0 %; p = 0.007). 33 % (11/33; 1.5 T) and 32 % (10/31; 3 T) of the ISUP grade group 1 PCa of the PZ lesions were detected in upgraded lesions (10% of all PZ index lesions, respectively).

CONCLUSION

DCE enabled the detection of a substantial amount of additional clinically significant PCa in prostate mpMRI at 1.5 T. The effect was smaller at 3 T and was accompanied in relation to 1.5 T by higher risk of overdiagnosis due to detection of additional low-risk PCa.

Comparison of Multiparametric and Fast MRI Protocols in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer and a Detailed Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the long acquisition time and high cost of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), biparametric and, more recently, fast prostate magnetic resonance imaging (fpMRI) protocols have been described. However, there is insufficient data about the diagnostic performance and cost of fpMRI.

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performances and cost analysis of fpMRI and mpMRI in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

A total of 103 patients (63 had csPCA) with a mean age of 66.83 (± 7.22) years were included.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 1.5-T; T1- and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo imaging (T1WI and T2WI), echo-planar diffusion-weighted images, and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1W imaging.

ASSESSMENT

Three readers independently evaluated the fpMRI and mpMRI images in different sessions blinded to all patient information. Diagnostic performances of fpMRI and mpMRI were evaluated. Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine the interreader and intrareader agreement. A detailed cost analysis was performed for each protocol.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Receiver operating characteristics analysis, area under the curve (AUC), and κ test were used. Diagnostic performance parameters were also calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 63 malignant index lesions (csPCA), 53/63 of those (84.1%) originated from the peripheral zone and 10/63 lesions (15.9%) originated from the transition zone. The AUC values for fpMRI were 0.878 for reader 1, 0.937 for reader 2, and 0.855 for reader 3. For mpMRI, the AUC values were 0.893 for reader 1, 0.94 for reader 2, and 0.862 for reader 3. Inter and intrareader agreements were moderate to substantial (κ range, 0.5-0.79). The total cost per examination was calculated as €12.39 and €30.10 for fpMRI and mpMRI, respectively.

DATA CONCLUSIONS

Fast MRI protocol has similar diagnostic performance with mpMRI in detecting csPCA, and fpMRI can be considered an alternative protocol that could create a lower financial burden on health-care systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 6.

Inter-reader agreement of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version v2.1 for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

We aimed to systematically assess the inter-reader agreement of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version (PI-RADS) v2.1 for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We included studies reporting inter-reader agreement of different radiologists that applied PI-RADS v2.1 for the detection of PCa. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed with the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. The summary estimates of the inter-reader agreement were pooled with the random-effect model and categorized (from slight to almost perfect) according to the kappa (κ) value. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore various clinical settings.

Results

A total of 12 studies comprising 2475 patients were included. The pooled inter-reader agreement for whole gland was κ=0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.73), and for transitional zone (TZ) lesions was κ=0.62 (95% CI 0.51-0.72). There was substantial heterogeneity presented throughout the studies (I 2= 95.6%), and meta-regression analyses revealed that only readers' experience (<5 years vs. ≥5 years) was the significant factor associated with heterogeneity (P<0.01). In studies providing head-to-head comparison, there was no significant difference in inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and v2.0 for both the whole gland (0.64 vs. 0.57, p=0.37), and TZ (0.61 vs. 0.59, p=0.81).

Conclusions

PI-RADS v2.1 demonstrated substantial inter-reader agreement among radiologists for whole gland and TZ lesions. However, the difference in agreement between PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 was not significant for the whole gland or the TZ.

Comparison of single-shot EPI and multi-shot EPI in prostate DWI at 3.0 T

In prostate MRI, single-shot EPI (ssEPI) DWI still suffers from distortion and blurring. Multi-shot EPI (msEPI) overcomes the drawbacks of ssEPI DWI. The aim of this article was to compare the image quality and diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) between ssEPI DWI and msEPI DWI. This retrospective study included 134 patients with suspected PC who underwent 3.0 T MRI and subsequent MRI-guided biopsy. Three radiologists independently assessed anatomical distortion, prostate edge clarity, and lesion conspicuity score for pathologically confirmed csPC. Lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and benign ADC were also calculated. In 17 PC patients who underwent prostatectomy, three radiologists independently assessed eight prostate regions by DWI score in PI-RADS v 2.1. Anatomical distortion and prostate edge clarity were significantly higher in msEPI DWI than in ssEPI DWI in the three readers. Lesion conspicuity score was significantly higher in msEPI DWI than in ssEPI DWI in reader 1 and reader 3. Regarding discrimination ability between PC with GS ≤ 3 + 4 and PC with GS ≥ 4 + 3 using lesion ADC, AUC was comparable between ssEPI DWI and msEPI DWI. For diagnostic performance of csPC using DWI score, AUC was comparable between msEPI DWI and ssEPI DWI in all readers. Compared with ssEPI DWI, msEPI DWI had improved image quality and similar or higher diagnostic performance.

Current Status of Biparametric MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Literature Analysis

The role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer is well-established. Based on the limited role of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in PI-RADS v2.1, the risk of potential side effects, and the increased cost and time, there has been an increase in studies advocating for the omission of DCE from MRI assessments. Per PI-RADS v2.1, DCE is indicated in the assessment of PI-RADS 3 lesions in the peripheral zone, with its most pronounced effect when T2WI and DWI are of insufficient quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and reporting in the literature from the past 5 years regarding the use of DCE in prostate MRI, especially with respect to the indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1, and to describe the different approaches used across the studies. We searched for studies investigating the use of bpMRI and/or mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer between January 2017 and April 2022 in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Through the search process, a total of 269 studies were gathered and 41 remained after abstract and full-text screening. The following information was extracted from the eligible studies: general clinical and technical characteristics of the studies, the number of PI-RADS 3 lesions, different definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy thresholds, reference standard methods, and number and experience of readers. Forty-one studies were included in the study. Only 51% (21/41) of studies reported the prevalence of csPCa in their equivocal lesion (PI-RADS category 3 lesions) subgroups. Of the included studies, none (0/41) performed a stratified sub-analysis of the DCE benefit versus MRI quality and 46% (19/41) made explicit statements about removing MRI scans based on a range of factors including motion, noise, and image artifacts. Furthermore, the number of studies investigating the role of DCE using readers with varying experience was relatively low. This review demonstrates that a high proportion of the studies investigating whether bpMRI can replace mpMRI did not transparently report information inherent to their study design concerning the key indications of DCE, such as the number of clinically insignificant/significant PI-RADS 3 lesions, nor did they provide any sub-analyses to test image quality, with some removing bad quality MRI scans altogether, or reader-experience-dependency indications for DCE. For the studies that reported on most of the DCE indications, their conclusions about the utility of DCE were heavily definition-dependent (with varying definitions of csPCa and of the PI-RADS category biopsy significance threshold). Reporting the information inherent to the study design and related to the specific indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1 is needed to determine whether DCE is helpful or not. With most of the recent literature being retrospective and not including the data related to DCE indications in particular, the ongoing dispute between bpMRI and mpMRI is likely to linger.

Cell-free DNA as a Promising Diagnostic Biomarker in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The detection of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a part of "liquid biopsy" of prostate cancer (PCa) has been widely explored. However, its diagnostic value for PCa remains controversial. Based on the data from the latest literature published in the past decade, the present review was conducted to clarify the diagnostic value of cfDNA in PCa.

Methods

The related studies were systematically searched in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2020. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and other relative parameters were pooled using a random model.

Results

14 eligible studies with 1049 PCa patients and 973 controls were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results demonstrated that cfDNA showed favorable SPE (0.89, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) but unsatisfied SEN (0.56, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.68) in the PCa diagnosis. The positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were 5.1 (95% CI: 3.1, 8.5), 0.49 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.63), and 10 (95% CI: 6, 17), respectively. The summary receiver operating characteristic graph (SROC) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.83) was constructed which indicated favorable diagnostic accuracy for PCa. Results of the subgroup analysis and metaregression analysis reminded "ethnicity" and "methylation" might be sources of heterogeneity. The potential publication bias was not found using Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis illustrated that the cfDNA could undertake a promising role in the PCa diagnosis.

Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T

Background

To compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients.

Methods

Thirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated.

Results

Twenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter−/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52–0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion.

Conclusion

Despite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7.

Clinical impact of ultra-high b-value (3000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3T: comparison with b-value of 2000 s/mm2

OBJECTIVE

High b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (hDWI) with a b-value of 2000 s/mm² provides insufficient image contrast between benign and malignant tissues and an overlap of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between Gleason grades (GG) in prostate cancer (PC). We compared image quality, PC detectability, and discrimination ability for PC aggressiveness between ultra-high b-value DWI (uhDWI) of 3000 s/mm² and hDWI.

METHODS

The subjects were 49 patients with PC who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI. Single-shot echo-planar DWI was acquired with b-values of 0, 2000, and 3000 s/mm². Anatomical distortion of prostate (AD), signal intensity of benign prostate (PSI), and lesion conspicuity score (LCS) were assessed using a 4-point scale; and signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and mean ADC (×10^-3 mm²/s) of lesion (lADC) and surrounding benign region (bADC) were measured.

RESULTS

PSI was significantly lower in uhDWI than in hDWI (p < 0.001). AD, LCS, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were comparable between uhDWI and hDWI (all p > 0.05). In contrast, lADC was significantly lower than bADC in both uhDWI and hDWI (both p < 0.001). In comparison of lADC between tumors of ≤GG2 and those of ≥GG3, both uhDWI and hDWI showed significant difference (p = 0.007 and p = 0.021, respectively). AUC for separating tumors of ≤GG2 from those of ≥GG3 was 0.731 in hDWI and 0.699 in uhDWI (p = 0.161).

CONCLUSION

uhDWI suppressed background signal better than hDWI, but did not contribute to increased diagnostic performance in PC.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Compared with hDWI, uhDWI could not contribute to increased diagnostic performance in PC.

A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), enabled by the clinical introduction of the integrated MRI and linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), is a novel technique for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, promising to further improve clinical outcome and reduce toxicity. The role of prostate MRI has been greatly expanded from the traditional PCa diagnosis to also PCa screening, treatment and surveillance. Diagnostic prostate MRI has been relatively familiar in the community, particularly with the development of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). But, on the other hand, the use of MRI in the emerging clinical practice of PCa MRgRT, which is substantially different from that in PCa diagnosis, has been so far sparsely presented in the medical literature. This review attempts to give a comprehensive overview of MRI acquisition techniques currently used in the clinical workflows of PCa MRgRT, from treatment planning to online treatment guidance, in order to promote MRI practice and research for PCa MRgRT. In particular, the major differences in the MRI acquisition of PCa MRgRT from that of diagnostic prostate MRI are demonstrated and explained. Limitations in the current MRI acquisition for PCa MRgRT are analyzed. The future developments of MRI in the PCa MRgRT are also discussed.

Histological validation of prostate tissue composition measurement using hybrid multi-dimensional MRI: agreement with pathologists' measures

PURPOSE

To validate prostate tissue composition measured using hybrid multi-dimensional MRI (HM-MRI) by comparing with reference standard (ground truth) results from pathologists' interpretation of clinical histopathology slides following whole mount prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

36 prospective participants with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer underwent 3 T MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. Axial HM-MRI was acquired with all combinations of echo times of 57, 70, 150, 200 ms and b-values of 0, 150, 750, 1500 s/mm² and data were fitted using a 3-compartment signal model using custom software to generate volumes for each tissue component (stroma, epithelium, lumen). Three experienced genitourinary pathologists independently as well as in consensus reviewed each histology image and provide an estimate of percentage of epithelium and lumen for regions-of-interest corresponding to MRI (n = 165; 64 prostate cancers and 101 benign tissue). Agreement statistics using total deviation index (TDI_0.9) was performed for tissue composition measured using HM-MRI and reference standard results from pathologists' consensus.

RESULTS

Based on the initial results showing typical variation among pathologists TDI_0.9 = 25%, we determined we will declare acceptable agreement if the 95% one-sided upper confident limit of TDI_0.9 is less than 30%. The results of tissue composition measurement from HM-MRI compared to ground truth results from the consensus of 3 pathologists, reveal that ninety percent of absolute paired differences (TDI_0.9) were within 18.8% and 22.4% in measuring epithelium and lumen, respectively. We are 95% confident that 90% of absolute paired differences were within 20.6% and 24.2% in measuring epithelium and lumen, respectively. These were less than our criterion of 30% and inter-pathologists' agreement (22.3% for epithelium and 24.2% for lumen) and therefore we accept the agreement performance of HM-MRI. The results revealed excellent area under the ROC curve for differentiating cancer from benign tissue based on epithelium (HM-MRI: 0.87, pathologists: 0.97) and lumen volume (HM-MRI: 0.85, pathologists: 0.77).

CONCLUSION

The agreement in tissue composition measurement using hybrid multidimensional MRI and consensus of pathologists is on par with the inter-raters (pathologists) agreement.

A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in American men following skin cancer, with approximately one in eight men being diagnosed during their lifetime. Over the past several decades, the treatment of prostate cancer has evolved rapidly, so too has screening. Since the mid-2010s, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies or 'targeted biopsies' has been a rapidly growing topic of clinical research within the field of urologic oncology. The aim of this publication is to provide a review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) utilization for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and a comparison to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Through single-centered studies and meta-analysis across all identified pertinent published literature, bpMRI is an effective tool for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer. When compared with the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, bpMRI identifies prostate cancer at comparable rates. In addition, when omitting dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) protocol to the MRI, patients incur reduced costs and shorter imaging time while providers can offer more tests to their patient population.

Fast T2-Weighted Imaging With Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) can potentially improve image quality by reduction of noise, thereby enabling fast acquisition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, a systematic evaluation of image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR has rarely been investigated in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE

To assess the image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR for the evaluation of extraprostatic extension (EPE).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

One hundred and nine men.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3 T; turbo spin echo T2-weighted images (T2WI), echo-planar diffusion-weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

ASSESSMENT

To compare image quality, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and subjective analysis using Likert scales on three T2WIs (MRI using conventional acquisition time, MRI using short acquisition time [fast MRI], and fast MRI with DLR) were performed. The diagnostic performance for EPE was evaluated by three independent readers.

STATISTICAL TESTS

SNR, CNR, and image quality scores across the three imaging protocols were compared using Friedman tests. The diagnostic performance for EPE was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fast MRI with DLR demonstrated significantly higher SNR (mean ± SD, 14.7 ± 6.8 vs. 8.8 ± 4.9) and CNR (mean ± SD, 6.5 ± 6.3 vs. 3.4 ± 3.6) values and higher image quality scores (median, 4.0 vs. 3.0 for three readers) than fast MRI. The AUCs for EPE were significantly higher with the use of DLR (0.86 vs. 0.75 for reader 2 and 0.82 vs. 0.73 for reader 3) compared with fast MRI, whereas differences were not significant for reader 1 (0.81 vs. 0.74; P = 0.09).

DATA CONCLUSION

DLR may be useful in reducing the acquisition time of prostate MRI without compromising image quality or diagnostic performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1

ABSTRACT

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems with a field strength of 3 T have been offered by all leading manufacturers for approximately 2 decades and are increasingly used in clinical diagnostics despite higher costs. Technologically, MRI systems operating at 3 T have reached a high standard in recent years, as well as the 1.5-T devices that have been in use for a longer time. For modern MRI systems with 3 T, more complexity is required, especially for the magnet and the radiofrequency (RF) system (with multichannel transmission). Many clinical applications benefit greatly from the higher field strength due to the higher signal yield (eg, imaging of the brain or extremities), but there are also applications where the disadvantages of 3 T might outweigh the advantages (eg, lung imaging or examinations in the presence of implants). This review describes some technical features of modern 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body MRI systems, and reports on the experience of using both types of devices in different clinical settings, with all sections written by specialist radiologists in the respective fields.This first part of the review includes an overview of the general physicotechnical aspects of both field strengths and elaborates the special conditions of diffusion imaging. Many relevant aspects in the application areas of musculoskeletal imaging, abdominal imaging, and prostate diagnostics are discussed.

Diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), a key component in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), is useful for tumor detection and localization in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 2 and 2.1 (PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1) emphasize the role of DWI in determining PIRADS Assessment Category in each of the transition and peripheral zones. In addition, several recent studies have demonstrated comparable performance of abbreviated biparametric MRI (bpMRI), which incorporates only T2-weighted imaging and DWI, compared with mpMRI with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Therefore, further optimization of DWI is essential to achieve clinical application of bpMRI for efficient detection of csPC in patients with elevated PSA levels. Although DWI acquisition is routinely performed using single-shot echo-planar imaging, this method suffers from such as susceptibility artifact and anatomic distortion, which remain to be solved. In this review article, we will outline existing problems in standard DWI using the single-shot echo-planar imaging sequence; discuss solutions that employ newly developed imaging techniques, state-of-the-art technologies, and sequences in DWI; and evaluate the current status of quantitative DWI for assessment of tumor aggressiveness in PC.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk

INTRODUCTION

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the use of three multiple imaging sequences, typically T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images, has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant cancer. Current guidance now recommends its use prior to biopsy. However, the impact of DCE is currently under debate regarding test accuracy. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), using only T2 and DWI has been proposed as a viable alternative. We conducted a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to further examine the diagnostic performance of bpMRI in the diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 01/01/2017 to 06/07/2019 was performed by two independent reviewers using predefined search criteria. The index test was biparametric MRI and the reference standard whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Quality of included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analysis included pooled diagnostic performance (sensitivity; specificity; AUC), meta-regression of possible covariates and head-to-head comparisons of bpMRI and mpMRI where both were performed in the same study.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for any cancer detection was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) for bpMRI. The summary ROC curve yielded a high AUC value (AUC = 0.86). The pooled sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84) and the AUC value was 0.87. Meta-regression analysis revealed no difference in the pooled diagnostic estimates between bpMRI and mpMRI.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis on contemporary studies shows that bpMRI offers comparable test accuracies to mpMRI in detecting prostate cancer. These data are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach but heterogeneity does not allow definitive recommendations to be made. There is a need for prospective multicentre studies of bpMRI in biopsy naïve men.

Detection and PI-RADS classification of focal lesions in prostate MRI: Performance comparison between a deep learning-based algorithm (DLA) and radiologists with various levels of experience

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of lesion detection and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification between a deep learning-based algorithm (DLA), clinical reports and radiologists with different levels of experience in prostate MRI.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 121 patients who underwent prebiopsy MRI and prostate biopsy. More than five radiologists (Reader groups 1, 2: residents; Readers 3, 4: less-experienced radiologists; Reader 5: expert) independently reviewed biparametric MRI (bpMRI). The DLA results were obtained using bpMRI. The reference standard was based on pathologic reports. The diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS classification of DLA, clinical reports, and radiologists was analyzed using AUROC. Dichotomous analysis (PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 3 or 4) was performed, and the sensitivities and specificities were compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Clinically significant cancer [CSC, Gleason score ≥ 7] was confirmed in 43 patients (35.5%). The AUROC of the DLA (0.828) for diagnosing CSC was significantly higher than that of Reader 1 (AUROC, 0.706; p = 0.011), significantly lower than that of Reader 5 (AUROC, 0.914; p = 0.013), and similar to clinical reports and other readers (p = 0.060-0.661). The sensitivity of DLA (76.7%) was comparable to those of all readers and the clinical reports at a PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 4. The specificity of the DLA (85.9%) was significantly higher than those of clinical reports and Readers 2-3 and comparable to all others at a PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 4.

CONCLUSIONS

The DLA showed moderate diagnostic performance at a level between those of residents and an expert in detecting and classifying according to PI-RADS. The performance of DLA was similar to that of clinical reports from various radiologists in clinical practice.

Comparison of Sensitivity and Specificity of Biparametric versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in the Detection of Prostate Cancer in 431 Men with Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels

(1) Background: the study of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) has a limited role in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), and there is a growing interest in performing unenhanced biparametric prostate-MRI (bpMRI) instead of the conventional multiparametric-MRI (mpMRI). In this study, we aimed to retrospectively compare the performance of the mpMRI, which includes DCE study, and the unenhanced bpMRI, composed of only T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), in PCa detection in men with elevated prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) levels. (2) Methods: a 1.5 T MRI, with an endorectal-coil, was performed on 431 men (aged 61.5 ± 8.3 years) with a PSA ≥4.0 ng/mL. The bpMRI and mpMRI tests were independently assessed in separate sessions by two readers with 5 (R1) and 3 (R2) years of experience. The histopathology or ≥2 years follow-up served as a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated with their 95% CI, and McNemar’s and Cohen’s κ statistics were used. (3) Results: in 195/431 (45%) of histopathologically proven PCa cases, 62/195 (32%) were high-grade PCa (GS ≥ 7b) and 133/195 (68%) were low-grade PCa (GS ≤ 7a). The PCa could be excluded by histopathology in 58/431 (14%) and by follow-up in 178/431 (41%) of patients. For bpMRI, the sensitivity was 164/195 (84%, 95% CI: 79–89%) for R1 and 156/195 (80%, 95% CI: 74–86%) for R2; while specificity was 182/236 (77%, 95% CI: 72–82%) for R1 and 175/236 (74%, 95% CI: 68–80%) for R2. For mpMRI, sensitivity was 168/195 (86%, 95% CI: 81–91%) for R1 and 160/195 (82%, 95% CI: 77–87%) for R2; while specificity was 184/236 (78%, 95% CI: 73–83%) for R1 and 177/236 (75%, 95% CI: 69–81%) for R2. Interobserver agreement was substantial for both bpMRI (κ = 0.802) and mpMRI (κ = 0.787). (4) Conclusions: the diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI were similar, and no high-grade PCa was missed with bpMRI.

Evaluation of Weighted Diffusion Subtraction for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is an important method for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis; however, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) requires the subjective assessment of "markedly hypointense or not" on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. We hypothesize that weighted diffusion subtraction (WDS) images, created by weighted subtraction of high and low b-value DWIs, might better show areas of ADC values below a set threshold, thus decreasing the subjectivity of the assessment.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic ability of WDS for csPCa by comparing scores based on WDS images (DWI/WDS) with those based on PI-RADS DWI (DWI/ADC).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

SUBJECTS

Eighty-six PCa patients.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES

3.0 T; DWI.

ASSESSMENT

Four readers assessed the probability of csPCa in lesions (overall, in the peripheral zone [PZ] and transitional zone [TZ]) using 5-point DWI/ADC and DWI/WDS scores. Prostatectomy specimens were the reference standard. ADC values and contrast between csPCa and normal prostate tissue on ADC maps and WDS images were calculated with reference to the pathological map.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Diagnostic ability was evaluated by Jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic curve. Figure of merit (FOM), sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) between the DWI/ADC and DWI/WDS scores were compared using paired t-test. Inter-reader agreement was analyzed using κ statistics, and the significance probability was calculated using the Z statistic. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare contrast between csPCa and normal prostate tissue on ADC maps and WDS images. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

FOM and sensitivity of the DWI/WDS scores were significantly better than those of the DWI/ADC scores overall, in the PZ and TZ (FOM: overall, 0.715 vs. 0.783; PZ, 0.756 vs. 0.815; TZ, 0.653 vs. 0.738. Sensitivity: overall, 0.512 vs. 0.607; PZ, 0.485 vs. 0.573; TZ, 0.636 vs. 0.761). For PPV, a statistically significant difference was observed overall (0.727 vs. 0.777). The κ value of DWI/WDS score was significantly higher than that of DWI/ADC score overall and in the PZ (overall, 0.614 vs. 0.792; PZ, 0.609 vs. 0.797). Contrast was significantly higher overall in the PZ and TZ in WDS images (median, 1.26, 1.19, and 1.61) than in ADC maps (0.46, 0.47, and 0.41).

DATA CONCLUSION

WDS images performed better than ADC maps in the diagnosis of csPCa and in inter-reader agreement of the diagnosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2.

The future direction of imaging in prostate cancer: MRI with or without contrast injection

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is the "state of the art" management tool for patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The role of non-contrast MRI is investigated to move toward a more personalized, less invasive, and highly cost-effective PCa diagnostic workup.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a non-systematic review of the existing literature to highlight strength and flaws of performing non-contrast MRI, and to provide a critical overview of the international scientific production on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online databases (Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for original articles, systematic review and meta-analysis, and expert opinion papers.

RESULTS

Several investigations have shown comparable diagnostic accuracy of biparametric (bpMRI) and mpMRI for the detection of PCa. The advantage of abandoning contrast-enhanced sequences improves operational logistics, lowering costs, acquisition time, and side effects. The main limitations of bpMRI are that most studies comparing non-contrast with contrast MRI come from centers with high expertise that might not be reproducible in the general community setting; besides, reduced protocols might be insufficient for estimation of the intra- and extra-prostatic extension and regional disease. The mentioned observations suggest that low-quality mpMRI for the general population might represent the main shortage to overcome.

DISCUSSION

Non-contrast MRI future trends are likely represented by PCa screening and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. PCa screening is still a controversial topic; bpMRI has become one of the most promising diagnostic applications, as it is a more sensitive test for PCa early detection, compared to serum PSA level test. Also, AI applications and radiomic have been the object of several studies investigating PCa detection using bpMRI, showing encouraging results.

CONCLUSION

Today, the accessibility to MRI for early detection of PCa is a priority. Results from prospective, multicenter, multireader, and paired validation studies are needed to provide evidence supporting its role in the clinical practice.

Simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) for biparametric MRI to detect and manage prostate cancer: What urologists need to know

Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, while the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is widely known for mpMRI, a proper PI-RADS for bpMRI has not yet been adopted. In this review, we report the current status and the future directions of bpMRI, and propose a simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) that could help radiologists and urologists in the detection and management of PCa.

Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial

Objectives

The PIRADS Steering Committee has called for “higher quality data before making evidence-based recommendations on MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic work up,” however, recognizing biparametric (bp) MRI as a reasonable option in a low-risk setting such as screening. With bpMRI, more men can undergo MRI at a lower cost and they can be spared the invasiveness of intravenous access. The aim of this study was to assess cancer detection in bpMRI vs mpMRI in sequential screening for prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Within the ongoing Göteborg PCa screening 2 trial, we assessed cancer detection in 551 consecutive participants undergoing prostate MRI. In the same session, readers first assessed bpMRI and then mpMRI. Four targeted biopsies were performed for lesions scored PIRADS 3–5 with bpMRI and/or mpMRI.

Results

Cancer was detected in 84/551 cases (15.2%; 95% CI: 12.4–18.4) with mpMRI and in 83/551 cases (15.1%; 95% CI: 12.3–18.2%) with bpMRI. The relative risk (RR) for cancer detection with bpMRI compared to mpMRI was 0.99 (95% one-sided CI: > 94.8); bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI (10% non-inferiority margin). bpMRI resulted in fewer false positives, 45/128 (35.2%), compared to mpMRI, 52/136 (38.2%), RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84–0.98. Of 8 lesions scored positive only with mpMRI, 7 were false positives. The PPV for MRI and targeted biopsy was 83/128 (64.8%) for bpMRI and 84/136 (61.8%) for mpMRI, RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10.

Conclusions

In a PSA-screened population, bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI for cancer detection and resulted in fewer false positives.

Key Points

• In screening for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI, biparametric MRI allows radiologists to detect an almost similar number of prostate cancers and score fewer false positive lesions compared to multiparametric MRI.

• In a screening program, high sensitivity should be weighed against cost and risks for healthy men; a large number of men can be saved the exposure of gadolinium contrast medium by adopting biparametric MRI and at the same time allowing for a higher turnover in the MRI room.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9.

Impact of qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative analyses of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnet resonance imaging on prostate cancer detection

Dynamic contrast enhanced imaging (DCE) as an integral part of multiparametric prostate magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) can be evaluated using qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative assessment methods. Aim of this study is to analyze the clinical benefits of these evaluations of DCE regarding clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection and grading. 209 DCE data sets of 103 consecutive patients with mpMRI (T2, DWI, and DCE) and subsequent MRI-(in-bore)-biopsy were retrospectively analyzed. Qualitative DCE evaluation according to PI-RADS v2.1, semi-quantitative (curve type; DCE score according to PI-RADS v1), and quantitative Tofts analyses (Ktrans, kep, and ve) as well as PI-RADS v1 and v2.1 overall classification of 209 lesions (92 PCa, 117 benign lesions) were performed. Of each DCE assessment method, cancer detection, discrimination of csPCa, and localization were assessed and compared to histopathology findings. All DCE analyses (p<0.01-0.05), except ve (p = 0.02), showed significantly different results for PCa and benign lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ) with area under the curve (AUC) values of up to 0.92 for PI-RADS v2.1 overall classification. In the transition zone (TZ) only the qualitative DCE evalulation within PI-RADS (v1 and v2.1) could distinguish between PCa and benign lesions (p<0.01; AUC = 0.95). None of the DCE parameters could differentiate csPCa from non-significant (ns) PCa (p ≥ 0.1). Qualitative analysis of DCE within mpMRI according to PI-RADS version 2.1 showed excellent results regarding (cs)PCa detection. Semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters provided no additional improvements. DCE alone wasn't able to discriminate csPCa from nsPCa.

Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol

Currently there is a lot of interest in the use of a "biparametric" or "abbreviated" prostate MR protocol, which usually refers to removal of the dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. In this article we describe the benefits of DCE as part of the PI-RADS lexicon, with particular reference to its role in PI-RADS V2 category 3 peripheral zone lesions. We also discuss the benefits of triplanar T2-weighted images, and finally discuss how a mpMRI protocol is of benefit in prostate cancer staging, in evaluating for local disease recurrence, and as a biomarker for neoadjuvant therapy response.

Biparametric (bp) and multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach to prostate cancer disease: a narrative review of current debate on dynamic contrast enhancement

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in male population. Over the last few years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proved to be a robust clinical tool for identification and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer. Though suggestions by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology to use complete multiparametric (mp) T2-weighted/diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)/dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) acquisition for all prostate MRI examinations, the real advantage of functional DCE remains a matter of debate. Recent studies demonstrate that biparametric (bp) and mp approaches have similar accuracy, but controversial evidences remain, and the specific potential benefits of contrast medium administration are still poorly discussed in literature. The bp approach is in fact sufficient in most cases to adequately identify a negative test, or to accurately define the degree of aggressiveness of a lesion, especially if larger or with major characteristics of malignancy. This feature would give the DCE a secondary role, probably limited to a second evaluation of the lesion location, for detecting small cancer or in case of controversy. However, DCE has proved to increase the sensitivity of prostate MRI, though a less specificity. Therefore, an appropriate decision algorithm is needed to standardize the MRI approach. Aim of this review study was to provide a schematic description of bpMRI and mpMRI approaches in the study of prostatic anatomy, focusing on comparative validity and current DCE application. Additional theoretical considerations on prostate MRI are provided.

Round table: arguments in supporting abbreviated or biparametric MRI of the prostate protocol

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 update, in the attempt to improve clinical guidelines for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate, has clear limitations. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences is not defined, precise guidance on the clinical management (biopsy or clinical surveillance) for score 3 lesions [equivocal for clinical significant prostate cancer (sPCa)] is not offered and criteria for lesions interpretation remain difficult and subjective. We report criteria and arguments in supporting the use of abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol in clinical practice for detection and management of PCa.

Rectal gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on prostate diffusion-weighted MRI with epi read-out at 3.0 T: does a preparatory micro-enema improve image quality?

PURPOSE

To assess whether the application of a preparatory micro-enema reduces gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate.

METHODS

114 consecutive patients who received multiparametric 3 T MRI of the prostate at our institution were retrospectively enrolled. 63 patients self-administered a preparatory micro-enema prior to imaging, and 51 patients underwent MRI without bowel preparation. Two blinded readers independently reviewed the diffusion-weighted sequences regarding gas-induced artefacts. The presence/severity of artefacts was scored ranging from 0 (no artefact) to 3 (severe artefact). A score ≥ 2 was considered a clinically relevant artefact. Maximum rectal width at the level of the prostate was correlated with the administration of a micro-enema. Scores were compared between the scans performed with and without bowel preparation using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, taking into account potential confounding factors (age and prostate volume).

RESULTS

Significantly less artefacts were found on diffusion-weighted sequences after the administration of a micro-enema shortly prior to MR imaging. Clinically relevant artefacts were found in 10% in the patient group after enema, in 41% without enema. If present, artefacts were also significantly less severe. Mean severity score was 0.3 (enema administered) and 1.2 (no enema), and odds ratio was 0.137 (p < 0.0001) in univariable ordinal logistic regression. Inter-observer agreement was excellent (κ 0.801).

CONCLUSION

The use of a preparatory micro-enema prior to 3 T multiparametric prostate MRI significantly reduces both the incidence and severity of gas-induced artefacts on diffusion-weighted sequences and thus improves image quality.

Round table: arguments against using multiparametric prostate MRI protocols

Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), which uses only T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging, continues to gain support for the detection of prostate cancer, as this imaging technique offers many benefits over traditional mpMRI. However, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 document released in 2019 emphasized that mpMRI is still preferred over bpMRI in most clinical scenarios. As one article in a series of four providing arguments for and against using mpMRI and bpMRI protocols, this paper provides arguments against using mpMRI. Within this article, we discuss recent data suggesting equivalent performance between bpMRI and mpMRI in the detection of prostate cancer. The limited utility of dynamic contrast enhancement in the evaluation of prostate cancer according to the PI-RADS v2.1 document is also reviewed. Finally, we detail the large financial and time costs, legal and logistical issues, and potential for patient harm that must be considered with the administration of contrast.

PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review

The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

How Fast Can We Go: Abbreviated Prostate MR Protocols

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), composed of T2WI, DWI, and DCE sequences, is effective in identifying prostate cancer (PCa), but length and cost preclude its application as a PCa screening tool. Here we review abbreviated MRI protocols that shorten or omit conventional mpMRI components to reduce scan time and expense without forgoing diagnostic accuracy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The DCE sequence, which plays a limited diagnostic role in PI-RADS, is eliminated in variations of the biparametric MRI (bpMRI). T2WI, the lengthiest sequence, is truncated by only acquiring the axial plane or utilizing 3D acquisition with subsequent 2D reconstruction. DW-EPI_SMS further accelerates DWI acquisition. The fastest protocol described to date consists of just DW-EPI_SMS and axial-only 2D T2WI and runs less than 5 min. Abbreviated protocols can mitigate scan expense and increase scan access, allowing prostate MRI to become an efficient PCa screening tool.

Effect of Echo Times on Prostate Cancer Detection on T2-Weighted Images

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of different echo times (TE) on the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) on T2-weighted MR images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study recruited patients (n = 38) with histologically confirmed PCa who underwent preoperative 3T MRI. Three radiologists independently marked region on interests (ROIs) on suspected PCa lesions on T2-weighted images at different TEs: 90, 150, and 180 ms obtained with Turbo Spin Echo imaging protocol with multiple echoes. The ROIs were assigned a value 1-5 indicating the reviewer's confidence in accurately detecting PCa. These ROIs were compared to histologically confirmed PCa (n = 95) on whole mount prostatectomy sections to calculate sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and confidence score.

RESULTS

Two radiologists (R1, R2) showed significantly increased sensitivity for PCa detection at 180 ms TE compared to 90 ms (R1: 43.2, 50.5, 50.5%, R2: 45.3, 44.2, 53.7% at TE of 90, 150, 180 ms, respectively) (p = 0.048, 0.033 for R1 and R2). Sensitivity was similar for radiologist 3 (45.3%-46.3%) at different TE values (p = 0.953). No significant difference in the PPV (R1: 64.1%-70.6%, R2: 46.7%-56.0%, R3: 70.5%-81.5%) and the confidence score assigned (R1: 4.6-4.8, R2: 4.6-4.8 R3: 4.3-4.4) was found for either of the radiologists.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest improved detection of PCa with similar PPV and confidence scores when higher TE values are utilized for T2-weighted image acquisition.

Tracking Changes in Clinical Practice Patterns Following Prebiopsy Biparametric Prostate MRI

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the change in clinical practice after implementation of prebiopsy biparametric MRI followed by targeted biopsy and the benefits of prebiopsy MRI based on real clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1,661 patients who underwent either transrectal biopsy or prebiopsy MRI for suspected prostate cancer between October 2015 and March 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective single-center study. To evaluate temporal changes in clinical practice, the study time was divided into five periods of six months. Prebiopsy prostate MRI was officially started in April 2016 in this center. Differences in practice patterns were compared among the five periods, and differences in biopsy results were compared in three groups: no prebiopsy MRI, negative MRI and positive MRI.

RESULTS

Prostate cancers were diagnosed in 463 patients. The proportion of patients who underwent prebiopsy MRI regardless of biopsy increased from 22.6% in period 1 to 84.4% in period 5 (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients who avoided biopsy according to MRI results increased significantly from 9.0% in period 1 to 48.1% in period 5 (P < 0.001). The prostate cancer detection rate and the number of positive cores were lower in the negative MRI group than those in the positive MRI and no prebiopsy MRI groups.

CONCLUSION

Prebiopsy MRI using biparametric MRI protocol has been well adapted to the practice and it is useful in stratifying the probability of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

In the past decade rigorous debate has taken place about population-based screening for prostate cancer. Although screening by serum PSA levels can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, it is unclear whether the benefits outweigh the risks of false-positive results and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer, and it is not recommended for population-based screening. MRI screening for prostate cancer has the potential to be analogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung cancer. A number of potential barriers and technical challenges need to be overcome in order to implement such a programme. We discuss different approaches to MRI screening that could address these challenges, including abbreviated MRI protocols, targeted MRI screening, longer rescreening intervals and a multi-modal screening pathway. These approaches need further investigation, and we propose a phased stepwise research framework to ensure proper evaluation of the use of a fast MRI examination as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and mpMRI-guided biopsy have proved to be a valuable part of the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. This review reports on the current results in terms of clinical performance of these diagnostic tools and their role in clinical decision-making.

Artificial intelligence in multiparametric prostate cancer imaging with focus on deep-learning methods

Prostate cancer represents today the most typical example of a pathology whose diagnosis requires multiparametric imaging, a strategy where multiple imaging techniques are combined to reach an acceptable diagnostic performance. However, the reviewing, weighing and coupling of multiple images not only places additional burden on the radiologist, it also complicates the reviewing process. Prostate cancer imaging has therefore been an important target for the development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) tools. In this survey, we discuss the advances in CAD for prostate cancer over the last decades with special attention to the deep-learning techniques that have been designed in the last few years. Moreover, we elaborate and compare the methods employed to deliver the CAD output to the operator for further medical decision making.

Contrast Medium or No Contrast Medium for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. That Is the Question

The benefits and drawbacks of the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI sequence for prostate cancer diagnosis are increasingly being recognized, with many centers adopting the biparametric (bp) MRI approach as the default initial approach. The abandonment of the routine use of contrast medium requires an assessment of the loss of diagnostic power against the gains in operational logistics, costs, time, capacity, and side effects. It is the balance of these factors weighted against the clinical priorities of patients that determines which patient groups can safely avoid dynamic contrast enhancement. Although systematic reviews and individual studies are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach, the pathway impacts for men with suspected cancer using the bpMRI approach are still not well documented for clinical practice. Robust prospectively acquired data for bpMRI regarding biopsy avoidance, detection of clinically significant and insignificant cancers, and for increasing the precision of tumor grade and volume are needed. There is a requirement for prospective, randomized, or blinded head-to-head, multicenter studies, addressing the noninferiority of biopsy yields prompted by bpMRI and multiparametric MRI approaches. These studies should more precisely define patient groups where the benefits and harms of contrast enhancement are aligned to their clinical priorities. Only then can we be confident in recommending bpMRI as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. Level of Evidence 1 Technical Efficacy Stage 5.

Is dynamic contrast enhancement still necessary in multiparametric magnetic resonance for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literatures assessing the value of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We searched Embase, PubMed and Web of science until January 2019 to extract articles exploring the possibilities whether the pre-biopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) can replace the position of mpMRI in the diagnosis of PCa. The sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI were all included. The study quality was assessed by QUADAS-2. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot were performed for further study through Revman 5 and Stata12.

Results

After searching, we acquired 752 articles among which 45 studies with 5,217 participants were eligible for inclusion. The positive likelihood ratio for the detection of PCa was 2.40 (95% CI: 1.50–3.80) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.18–0.53). The sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73–0.81) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76–0.85) respectively. Based on our result, pooled specificity demonstrated little difference between bpMRI and mpMRI [bpMRI, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76–0.85); mpMRI, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72–0.88); P=0.169]. The sensitivity, however, indicated a significant difference between these two groups [bpMRI, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73–0.81); mpMRI, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78–0.89); P=0.001].

Conclusions

bpMRI with high b-value is a sensitive tool for diagnosing PCa. Consistent results were found in multiple subgroup analysis.

MRI combined with PSA density in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10ng/mL: Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) to that of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in combination with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10ng/mL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 123 men (mean age, 66.3±8.9 [SD]; range: 42-83 years) with PSA serum levels of 4∼10ng/mL with suspected csPCa were included. All patients underwent mpMRI at 3 Tesla and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in their clinical workup and were followed-up for >1 year when no csPCa was found at initial biopsy. The mpMRI images were reinterpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS, v2.1) twice in two different sessions using either mpMRI sequences or bpMRI sequences. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether csPCa was detected. The PI-RADS (mpMRI or bpMRI) categories and PSAD were used in combination to detect csPCa. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analyses were performed to compare the efficacy of the different models (mpMRI, bpMRI, PSAD, mpMRI+PSAD and bpMRI+PSAD).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (30.1%, 37/123) had csPCa. ROC analysis showed that bpMRI (AUC=0.884 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.814-0.935]) outperformed mpMRI (AUC=0.867 [95% CI: 0.794-0.921]) (P=0.035) and that bpMRI and mpMRI performed better than PSAD (0.682 [95% CI: 0.592-0.763]) in detecting csPCa; bpMRI+PSAD (AUC=0.907 [95% CI: 0.841-0.952]) performed similarly to mpMRI+PSAD (AUC=0.896 [95% CI: 0.828-0.944]) (P=0.151) and bpMRI (P=0.224). The sensitivity and specificity were 81.1% (95% CI: 64.8-92.0%) and 88.4% (95% CI: 79.7-94.3%), respectively for bpMRI, and 83.8% (95% CI: 68.0-93.8%) and 80.2% (95% CI: 70.2-88.0%), respectively for mpMRI (P>0.999 for sensitivity and P=0.016 for specificity). Among the 5 decision models, the decision curve analysis showed that all models (except for PSAD) achieved a high net benefit.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10ng/mL, bpMRI and bpMRI combined with PSAD achieve better performance than mpMRI in detecting csPCa; bpMRI has a higher specificity than mpMRI, which could decrease unnecessary biopsy, and may serve as a potential alternative to mpMRI to optimize clinical workup.