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

Extra-prostatic extension grading system: correlation with MRI features and integration of capsular enhancement sign for "enhanced" detection of T3a lesions

PURPOSE

This study aims to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of extra-prostatic extension (EPE) grading system and to explore the predictive capabilities of the prostate MRI while considering various MRI features such as lesion location, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and capsular enhancement sign (CES).

METHODS

Our monocentric study is based on a retrospective analysis of 99 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2021 to January 2023. The observers reviewed for each lesion, including location (transitional or peripheral zone, anterior or posterior location), capsular contact length, irregular bulging of the capsule, asymmetry of the neurovascular bundle, obliteration of the recto-prostatic angle, macroscopic EPE, ADC value, and CES.

RESULTS

Among 99 patients, 31 patients had EPE. Lesions with EPE have broadercapsule contact (24 mm vs 12 mm) with contact ≥14 mm being the optimal cut-off for EPE discrimination. Among the morphological MRI criteria used to determine the EPE, the one with major sensitivity was shown to be bulging (sen 81%), while macroscopic extension had highest specificity (100%). Univariate analysis showed as significative risk factors for EPE: capsular contact ≥14 mm (P < .001), International Society of Urological Pathology score ≥3 (P = .005), CES (P < .001), bulging (P = .001), neurovascular bundle asymmetry (P < .001) and EPE score ≥2 (P < .001), and in multivariate analysis CES (P = .001) and EPE score ≥2 (P = .004) were significant. The AUC of the EPE score was 0.76, raised to 0.83 when combining it with CES (P = .11).

CONCLUSION

CES in the setting of multiparametric MRI can increase diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of extracapsular disease.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study highlights the potential of contrast media in prostate cancer local staging.

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

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

The role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging structured reporting and data systems (RADS)

Among the 28 reporting and data systems (RADS) available in the literature, we identified 15 RADS that can be used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Performing examinations without using gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) has benefits, but GBCA administration is often required to achieve an early and accurate diagnosis. The aim of the present review is to summarize the current role of GBCA in MRI RADS. This overview suggests that GBCA are today required in most of the current RADS and are expected to be used in most MRIs performed in patients with cancer. Dynamic contrast enhancement is required for correct scores calculation in PI-RADS and VI-RADS, although scientific evidence may lead in the future to avoid the GBCA administration in these two RADS. In Bone-RADS, contrast enhancement can be required to classify an aggressive lesion. In RADS scoring on whole body-MRI datasets (MET-RADS-P, MY-RADS and ONCO-RADS), in NS-RADS and in Node-RADS, GBCA administration is optional thanks to the intrinsic high contrast resolution of MRI. Future studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the high T1 relaxivity GBCA on the assignment of RADS scores.

Contemporary Approach to Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System Score 3 Lesions

The aim of this article is to review the technical and clinical considerations encountered with PI-RADS 3 lesions, which are equivocal for clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) with detection rates ranging between 10% and 35%. The number of PI-RADS 3 lesions reported vary according to several factors including MRI quality and radiologist training/expertise among the most influential. PI-RADS v.2.1 updated definitions for scores 2 and 3 in the PZ and scores 1 and 2 in the TZ is reviewed. The role of DWI role is highlighted in the assessment of the TZ with the possibility of upgrading score 2 lesions to score 3 based on DWI score. Given the increased utilization for prostate MRI, biparametric MRI can be considered as an alternative for low-risk patients where there is a need to rule out csPCa acknowledging this technique may increase the number of indeterminate cases going for biopsies. Management of patients with equivocal lesions at mpMRI and factors influencing biopsy decision process remain as an unmet need and additional studies using molecular/imaging markers as well as artificial intelligence tools are needed to further address their role in proper patient selection for biopsy.

Update on Optimization of Prostate MR Imaging Technique and Image Quality

Prostate MR imaging quality has improved dramatically over recent times, driven by advances in hardware, software, and improved functional imaging techniques. MRI now plays a key role in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up, but outcomes of the MRI-directed pathway are heavily dependent on image quality and optimization. MR sequences can be affected by patient-related degradations relating to motion and susceptibility artifacts which may enable only partial mitigation. In this Review, we explore issues relating to prostate MRI acquisition and interpretation, mitigation strategies at a patient and scanner level, PI-QUAL reporting, and future directions in image quality, including artificial intelligence solutions.

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.

Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Parameters Could Predict International Society of Urological Pathology Risk Groups of Prostate Cancers on Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade and positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) may reflect the prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. This study aimed to investigate whether DCE-MRI parameters (i.e., Ktrans, kep, and IAUC) could predict ISUP grade and PSMs after RP.

METHOD

Forty-five PCa patients underwent preoperative DCE-MRI. The clinical characteristics and DCE-MRI parameters of the 45 patients were compared between the low- and high-risk (i.e., ISUP grades III-V) groups and between patients with or without PSMs after RP. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the significant predictors of placement in the high-risk group and PSMs.

RESULTS

The DCE parameter Ktrans-max was significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group (p = 0.028) and was also a significant predictor of placement in the high-risk group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.032, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.005-1.060, p = 0.021). Patients with PSMs had significantly higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) titers, positive biopsy core percentages, Ktrans-max, kep-median, and kep-max than others (all p < 0.05). Of these, positive biopsy core percentage (OR = 1.035, 95% CI = 1.003-1.068, p = 0.032) and kep-max (OR = 1.078, 95% CI = 1.012-1.148, p = 0.020) were significant predictors of PSMs.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative DCE-MRI parameters, specifically Ktrans-max and kep-max, could potentially serve as preoperative imaging biomarkers for postoperative PCa prognosis based on their predictability of PCa risk group and PSM on RP, respectively.

Parametric maps of spatial two-tissue compartment model for prostate dynamic contrast enhanced MRI - comparison with the standard tofts model in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

The spatial two-tissue compartment model (2TCM) was used to analyze prostate dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI data and compared with the standard Tofts model. A total of 29 patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer were included in this IRB-approved study. MRI data were acquired on a Philips Achieva 3T-TX scanner. After T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, DCE data using 3D T1-FFE mDIXON sequence were acquired pre- and post-contrast media injection (0.1 mmol/kg Multihance) for 60 dynamic scans with temporal resolution of 8.3 s/image. The 2TCM has one fast ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]) and one slow ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]) exchanging compartment, compared with the standard Tofts model parameters (Ktrans and kep). On average, prostate cancer had significantly higher values (p < 0.01) than normal prostate tissue for all calculated parameters. There was a strong correlation (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) between Ktrans and [Formula: see text] for cancer, but weak correlation (r = 0.28, p < 0.05) between kep and [Formula: see text]. Average root-mean-square error (RMSE) in fits from the 2TCM was significantly smaller (p < 0.001) than the RMSE in fits from the Tofts model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that fast [Formula: see text] had the highest area under the curve (AUC) than any other individual parameter. The combined four parameters from the 2TCM had a considerably higher AUC value than the combined two parameters from the Tofts model. The 2TCM is useful for quantitative analysis of prostate DCE-MRI data and provides new information in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Low cancer yield in PI-RADS 3 upgraded to 4 by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: is it time to reconsider scoring categorization?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate MRI diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in peripheral-zone PI-RADS 4 lesions, comparing those with clearly restricted diffusion (DWI-score 4), and those with equivocal diffusion pattern (DWI-score 3) and positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI.

METHODS

This observational prospective study enrolled 389 men referred to MRI and, if positive (PI-RADS 3 with PSA-density [PSAD] ≥ 0.15 ng/mL/mL, 4 and 5), to MRI-directed biopsy. Lesions with DWI-score 3 and positive DCE were classified as "PI-RADS 3up," instead of PI-RADS 4. Univariable and multivariable analyses were implemented to determine features correlated to csPCa detection.

RESULTS

Prevalence of csPCa was 14.5% and 53.3% in PI-RADS categories 3up and 4, respectively (p < 0.001). MRI showed a sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity 40.9%, PPV 46.5%, NPV 100.0%, and accuracy 60.9% for csPCa detection. Modifying the threshold to consider MRI positive and to indicate biopsy (same as previously described, but PI-RADS 3up only when associated with elevated PSAD), the sensitivity changed to 93.9%, specificity 57.2%, PPV 53.0%, NPV 94.8%, and accuracy 69.7%. Age (p < 0.001), PSAD (p < 0.001), positive DWI (p < 0.001), and PI-RADS score (p = 0.04) resulted in independent predictors of csPCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cases of PI-RADS 3up were false-positives, suggesting that upgrading peripheral lesions with DWI-score 3 to PI-RADS 4 because of positive DCE has a detrimental effect on MRI accuracy, decreasing the true prevalence of csPCa in the PI-RADS 4 category. PI-RADS 3up should not be upgraded and directed to biopsy only if associated with increased PSAD.

KEY POINTS

• As per PI-RADS v2.1 recommendations, in case of a peripheral zone lesion with equivocal diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI score 3), but positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, the overall PI-RADS score should be upgraded to 4. • The current PI-RADS recommendation of upgrading PI-RADS 3 lesions of the peripheral zone to PI-RADS 4 because of positive DCE decreased clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in our series. • According to our results, the most accurate threshold for setting indication to prostate biopsy is PI-RADS 3 or PI-RADS 3 with positive DCE both associated with increased PSA density.

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.

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.

Tumor Area Highlighting Using T2WI, ADC Map, and DWI Sequence Fusion on bpMRI Images for Better Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. The results obtained in magnetic resonance imaging examinations are used to decide the indication, type, and location of a prostate biopsy and contribute information about the characterization or aggressiveness of detected cancers, including tumor progression over time. This study proposes a method to highlight prostate lesions with a high and very high risk of being malignant by overlaying a T2-weighted image, apparent diffusion coefficient map, and diffusion-weighted image sequences using 204 pairs of slices from 80 examined patients. It was reviewed by two radiologists who segmented suspicious lesions and labeled them according to the prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score. Both radiologists found the algorithm to be useful as a “first opinion”, and they gave an average score on the quality of the highlight of 9.2 and 9.3, with an agreement of 0.96.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Artificial intelligence algorithms aimed at characterizing or detecting prostate cancer on MRI: How accurate are they when tested on independent cohorts? – A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the diagnostic performance, in independent test cohorts, of artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms aimed at characterizing/detecting prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2018 and September 2022, using a histological reference standard, and assessing prostate cancer characterization/detection by AI-based MRI algorithms in test cohorts composed of more than 40 patients and with at least one of the following independency criteria as compared to the training cohort: different institution, different population type, different MRI vendor, different magnetic field strength or strict temporal splitting.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were selected. The overall risk of bias was low. However, 23 studies did not use predefined diagnostic thresholds, which may have optimistically biased the results. Test cohorts fulfilled one to three of the five independency criteria. The diagnostic performance of the algorithms used as standalones was good, challenging that of human reading. In the 12 studies with predefined diagnostic thresholds, radiomics-based computer-aided diagnosis systems (assessing regions-of-interest drawn by the radiologist) tended to provide more robust results than deep learning-based computer-aided detection systems (providing probability maps). Two of the six studies comparing unassisted and assisted reading showed significant improvement due to the algorithm, mostly by reducing false positive findings.

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI AI-based algorithms showed promising results, especially for the relatively simple task of characterizing predefined lesions. The best management of discrepancies between human reading and algorithm findings still needs to be defined.

A Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Predictive Model Using Digital Rectal Examination Prostate Volume Category to Stratify Initial Prostate Cancer Suspicion and Reduce Magnetic Resonance Imaging Demand

A predictive model including age, PCa family history, biopsy status (initial vs repeat), DRE (normal vs abnormal), serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and DRE prostate volume ca-tegory was developed to stratify initial PCa suspicion in 1486 men with PSA > 3 ng/mL and/or abnormal DRE, in whom mpMRI followed; 2- to 4-core TRUS-guided biopsies where Prostate Imaging Report and Data System (PI-RADS) > 3 lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were performed in one academic institution between 1 January 2016−31 December 2019. The csPCa detection rate, defined as International Society of Uro-Pathology grade group 2 or higher, was 36.9%. An external validation of designed BCN-RC 1 was carried out on 946 men from two other institutions in the same metropolitan area, using the same criteria of PCa suspicion and diagnostic approach, yielded a csPCa detection rate of 40.8%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of BCN-RC 1 were 0.823 (95% CI: 0.800−0.846) in the development cohort and 0.837 (95% CI: 0.811−0.863) in the validation cohort (p = 0.447). In both cohorts, BCN-RC 1 exhibited net benefit over performing mpMRI in all men from 8 and 12% risk thresholds, respectively. At 0.95 sensitivity of csPCa, the specificities of BCN-RC 1 were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.22−0.26) in the development cohort and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.31−0.37) in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). The percentages of avoided mpMRI scans were 17.2% in the development cohort and 22.3% in the validation cohort, missing between 1.8% and 2% of csPCa among men at risk of PCa. In summary, BCN-RC 1 can stratify initial PCa suspicion, reducing the demand of mpMRI, with an acceptable loss of csPCa.