Magnetic resonance imaging‑directed biopsy improves the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness compared with a 12‑core transrectal ultrasound‑guided prostate biopsy

Three-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a complementary tool to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of aggressive prostate cancer at 3.0T

Background

The limitations of the assessment of tumor aggressiveness by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and biopsies suggest that the diagnostic algorithm could be improved by quantitative measurements in some chosen indications. We assessed the tumor high-risk predictive performance of 3.0 Tesla (3.0T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) combined with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic sequences (NMR-S) in order to show that the metabolic analysis could bring out an evocative result for the aggressive form of prostate cancer.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 26 patients (mean age, 62.4 years) who had surgery for prostate cancer between 2009 and 2016 after pre-therapeutic assessment with 3.0T mp-MRI and NMR-S. Groups within the intermediate range of the D'Amico risk classification were divided into two categories, low risk (n=20) and high risk (n=6), according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2-3 limit. Histoprognostic discordances within various risk groups were compared with the corresponding predictive MRI values. The performance of predictive models was assessed based on sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

After prostatectomy, histological analysis reclassified 18 patients as high-risk, including 16 who were T3 MRI grade, of whom 13 (81.3%) were found to be pT3. Among the patients who had cT1 or cT2 digital rectal examinations, the T3 MRI factor multiplied by 8.7 [odds ratio (OR), 8.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-56.2; P=0.024] the relative risk of being pT3 and by 5.8 (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 0.95-35.7; P=0.05) the relative risk of being pGleason (pGS) > GS-prostate biopsy. Spectroscopic data showed that the choline concentration was significantly higher (P=0.001) in aggressive disease.

Conclusions

The predictive model of tumor aggressiveness combining mp-MRI plus NMR-S was better than the mp-MRI model alone (AUC, 0.95 vs. 0.86). Information obtained by mp-MRI coupled with spectroscopy may improve the detection of occult aggressive disease, helping in the discrimination of intermediate risks.

mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to compare the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB) in men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa).

RECENT FINDINGS

In biopsy-naïve patients, MRI-TB was more accurate to identify csPCa than SB. However, when comparing specifically MRI-TB versus transperineal (SB), we did not find any difference. Furthermore, in a repeat biopsy scenario, MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB as well. Finally, postanalysis comparing combined biopsy (SB plus MRI-TB) suggests that the later alone may play a role in both scenarios for identifying csPCa.

SUMMARY

MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB in patients with suspected PCa in both scenarios, naïve and repeat biopsies, but more studies comparing those methods are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) may be an alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancer by MRI-TB with those by systematic biopsy in men undergoing prostate biopsy to identify prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. We included prospective and retrospective paired studies where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator test was systematic biopsy. We also included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if one arm included MRI-TB and another arm included systematic biopsy. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. In addition, the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool was used for RCTs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 68 studies with a paired design and eight RCTs, comprising a total of 14709 men who either received both MRI-TB and systematic biopsy, or were randomised to receive one of the tests. MRI-TB detected more men with clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy (detection ratio [DR] 1.16 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.24], p<0.0001) and fewer men with clinically insignificant cancer than systematic biopsy (DR 0.66 [95% CI 0.57-0.76], p<0.0001). The proportion of cores positive for cancer was greater for MRI-TB than for systematic biopsy (relative risk 3.17 [95% CI 2.82-3.56], p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-TB is an attractive alternative diagnostic strategy to systematic biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the published literature, comparing two methods of diagnosing prostate cancer. We found that biopsies targeted to suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were better at detecting prostate cancer that needs to be treated and avoiding the diagnosis of disease that does not need treatment than the traditional systematic biopsy.

Multimodality Image Fusion with PSMA PET/CT and High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Focal Therapy for Primary Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer: A Planned Research Initiative

Recent developments in diagnostic imaging herald a new approach to diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Multimodality fusion that combines anatomic with functional imaging data has surpassed either of the two alone. This opens up the possibility to "find and fix" malignancy with greater accuracy than ever before. This is particularly important for prostate cancer because it is the most common male cancer in most developed countries. This article describes technical advances under investigation at our institution and others using multimodality image fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and PSMA PET/CT (defined as the combination of prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA], positron emission tomography [PET], and computed tomography [CT]) for personalized medicine in the diagnosis and focal therapy of prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HiFUS).

Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2

Background:

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is a globally acceptable standardization for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The American College of Radiology revised the PI-RADS to address the limitations of version 1 in December 2014. This study aimed to determine whether the PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scoring system improves the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI of the prostate compared with PI-RADS v1.

Methods:

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 401 consecutive patients, with clinically suspicious PCa undergoing 3.0 T mp-MRI (T2-weighted imaging + diffusion-weighted imaging + DCE) before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy between June 2013 and July 2015, were included in the study. All patients were scored using the 5-point PI-RADS scoring system based on either PI-RADS v1 or v2. Receiver operating characteristics were calculated for statistical analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were compared using McNemar's test.

Results:

PCa was present in 150 of 401 (37.41%) patients. When we pooled data from both peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ), the areas under the curve were 0.889 for PI-RADS v1 and 0.942 for v2 (P = 0.0001). Maximal accuracy was achieved with a score threshold of 4. At this threshold, in the PZ, similar sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were achieved with v1 and v2 (all P > 0.05). In the TZ, sensitivity was higher for v2 than for v1 (96.36% vs. 76.36%, P = 0.003), specificity was similar for v2 and v1 (90.24% vs. 84.15%, P = 0.227), and accuracy was higher for v2 than for v1 (92.70% vs. 81.02%, P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

Both v1 and v2 showed good diagnostic performance for the detection of PCa. However, in the TZ, the performance was better with v2 than with v1.

Computer-aided Detection of Prostate Cancer with MRI: Technology and Applications

One in six men will develop prostate cancer in his lifetime. Early detection and accurate diagnosis of the disease can improve cancer survival and reduce treatment costs. Recently, imaging of prostate cancer has greatly advanced since the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI). Mp-MRI consists of T2-weighted sequences combined with functional sequences including dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging. Because of the big data and variations in imaging sequences, detection can be affected by multiple factors such as observer variability and visibility and complexity of the lesions. To improve quantitative assessment of the disease, various computer-aided detection systems have been designed to help radiologists in their clinical practice. This review paper presents an overview of literatures on computer-aided detection of prostate cancer with mp-MRI, which include the technology and its applications. The aim of the survey is threefold: an introduction for those new to the field, an overview for those working in the field, and a reference for those searching for literature on a specific application.

Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer

Imaging has traditionally played a minor role in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. However, recent controversies generated by the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening followed by random biopsy have encouraged the development of new imaging methods for prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as the imaging method best able to detect clinically significant prostate cancers and to guide biopsies. Here, the authors explain what mpMRI is and how it is used clinically, especially with regard to high-risk populations, and we discuss the impact of mpMRI on treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:326-336. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to investigate the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) followed by targeted biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and to compare it with transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-guided) systematic biopsy in patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are either biopsy-naive or who have a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy. MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE (1997 to April 2014), the Cochrane Library and six relevant conferences were searched to find eligible studies. Search terms indicative of 'prostate cancer' and 'magnetic resonance imaging' with their alternatives were used. Twelve systematic reviews, 52 full texts and 28 abstracts met the preplanned study selection criteria; data from 15 articles were extracted. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who were biopsy-naive, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy could detect 2-13% of CSPC patients whom TRUS-guided systematic biopsy missed; TRUS-guided systematic biopsy could detect 0-7% of CSPC patients whom MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy missed. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who had a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy detected more CSPC patients than repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy in all four studies, with a total of 516 patients, but only one study reached a statistically significant difference. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are biopsy-naive, there is insufficient evidence for MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy to be considered the standard of care. In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and show a growing risk of having CSPC, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be helpful to detect more CSPC cases as opposed to a repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

The expanding landscape of diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer

The added value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) for the detection, localization, and staging of primary prostate cancer has been extensively reported in original studies and meta-analyses. More recently, DW-MRI and related techniques have been used to noninvasively assess prostate cancer aggressiveness and estimate its biological behavior. The present article aims to summarize the potential applications of DW-MRI for noninvasive optimization of pretherapeutic risk assessment, patient management decisions, and evaluation of treatment response.

Accuracy of MRI-Targeted in-Bore Prostate Biopsy According to the Gleason Score with Postprostatectomy Histopathologic Control--a Targeted Biopsy-Only Strategy with Limited Number of Cores

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Accuracy of ultrasound-guided biopsy and Gleason score is limited, and diagnosis of insignificant cancer with Gleason score ≤6 is frequent when extended biopsy schemes are used. We evaluated whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted in-bore prostate biopsy correctly identifies the Gleason score of prostate cancer in histopathologic correlation after prostatectomy. Simultaneously a targeted concept is expected to keep down the rate of insignificant cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared retrospectively the Gleason score of the MRI-targeted in-bore biopsy with prostatectomy specimens in 50 men with prostate cancer. Endorectal MRI included T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and spectroscopy. Lesions with a prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score ≥3 were considered. Upgrading and downgrading of tumors was evaluated, and significant upgrading was defined as a shift in Gleason score from 6 to 7 or more.

RESULTS

Gleason score was concordant in 66% of the patients, overall upgraded in 30% of patients, and downgraded in 4% of patients. Significant upgrading of the Gleason score from 6 to 7 occurred in eight patients; upgrading did not exceed one step in the Gleason score. After prostatectomy the Gleason score 6 was found in 20% of patients. The median number of cores obtained was 4 (range 2-6), and the median number of positive cores was 2 (range 1-4).

CONCLUSIONS

In-bore MRI-targeted biopsy offers good accuracy in the Gleason score with postprostatectomy histopathologic control when compared to the literature. A limited number of cores are sufficient to achieve these results. The fraction of insignificant cancer identified by targeted only-biopsy is low. Upgrading is restricted to one step in the Gleason score. Clinicians should be aware of positive findings in MRI and the biopsy technique used when assessing prostate biopsy results.