Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: Improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment

US & MR/CT Image Fusion with Markerless Skin Registration: A Proof of Concept

This paper presents an innovative automatic fusion imaging system that combines 3D CT/MR images with real-time ultrasound acquisition. The system eliminates the need for external physical markers and complex training, making image fusion feasible for physicians with different experience levels. The integrated system involves a portable 3D camera for patient-specific surface acquisition, an electromagnetic tracking system, and US components. The fusion algorithm comprises two main parts: skin segmentation and rigid co-registration, both integrated into the US machine. The co-registration aligns the surface extracted from CT/MR images with the 3D surface acquired by the camera, facilitating rapid and effective fusion. Experimental tests in different settings, validate the system's accuracy, computational efficiency, noise robustness, and operator independence.

Personalized strategies in population screening for prostate cancer

This review discusses evidence for population-based screening with contemporary screening tools. In Europe, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to a relative reduction of prostate cancer (PCa) mortality, but also to a substantial amount of overdiagnosis and unnecessarily biopsies. Risk stratification based on a single variable (a clinical variable or based on the presence of a lesion on prostate imaging) or based on multivariable approaches can aid in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis by selecting men who can benefit from further clinical assessment. Multivariable approaches include clinical variables, and biomarkers, often combined in risk calculators or nomograms. These risk calculators can also incorporate the result of MRI imaging. In general, as compared to a purely PSA based approach, the combination of relevant prebiopsy information results in superior selection of men at higher risk of harboring clinically significant prostate cancer. Currently, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the superiority of these multivariable risk-based approaches since head-to-head comparisons are virtually lacking. Recently initiated large population-based screening studies in Finland, Germany and Sweden, incorporating various multivariable risk stratification approaches will hopefully give more insight in whether the harm-benefit ratio can be improved, that is, maintain (or improving) the ability to reduce metastatic disease and prostate cancer mortality while reducing harm caused by unnecessary testing and overdiagnosis including related overtreatment.

Endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies vs. multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies in males with high risk of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study

Multiparametric MRI fusion with transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI/TRUS)-guided biopsy has the sensitivity of mpMRI with the practicality of TRUS, but males with no cancerous lesion(s) detected on mpMRI have a considerable remaining risk of cancer. Endorectal power Doppler ultrasound improves the sensitivity of grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the beneficial effect of endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsy over that of mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsy for decision-making regarding prostatectomy in males with a high risk of prostate cancer. Data regarding endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies and mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsies of 1,094 males with elevated specific prostate antigen, were included. Radical prostatectomy was performed in males aged <70 years with Gleason scores ≥3+4 in any one of the biopsy reports. The histopathological data of the surgical specimen of 776 males were included in the analysis. Compared to the histopathology of the surgical specimen, endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies had a lower sensitivity (0.930 vs. 1.000; P<0.0001) but mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsies had the same sensitivity (0.990 vs. 1.000; P=0.02). The accuracy of mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsies was higher than that of endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies (0.944 vs. 0.783). On mpMRI, lesions of 105 subjects (10%) with a Likert scale score of <3 were identified. Among them, 14 subjects (2%) had Gleason scores of ≥3+4 as determined by endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies. In addition, 20 (2%) false-positive lesions compared to the histopathological analysis of the surgical specimen were identified from mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsies. In conclusion, mpMRI/TRUS-guided biopsy was indicated to have a moderate performance and endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsy had a scant performance for decision-making regarding prostatectomy.

Robotic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy

We present a robot-assisted approach for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. The robot is a hands-free probe manipulator that moves the probe with the same 4 DoF that are used manually. Software was developed for three-dimensional (3-D) imaging, biopsy planning, robot control, and navigation. Methods to minimize the deformation of the prostate caused by the probe at 3-D imaging and needle targeting were developed to reduce biopsy targeting errors. We also present a prostate coordinate system (PCS). The PCS helps defining a systematic biopsy plan without the need for prostate segmentation. Comprehensive tests were performed, including two bench tests, one imaging test, two in vitro targeting tests, and an IRB-approved clinical trial on five patients. Preclinical tests showed that image-based needle targeting can be accomplished with accuracy on the order of 1 mm. Prostate biopsy can be accomplished with minimal TRUS pressure on the gland and submillimetric prostate deformations. All five clinical cases were successful with an average procedure time of 13 min and millimeter targeting accuracy. Hands-free TRUS operation, transrectal TRUS guided prostate biopsy with minimal prostate deformations, and the PCS-based biopsy plan are novel methods. Robot-assisted prostate biopsy is safe and feasible. Accurate needle targeting has the potential to increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Targeted Biopsy Validation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Characterization With Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting and Diffusion Mapping

OBJECTIVE

This study aims for targeted biopsy validation of magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) and diffusion mapping for characterizing peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer and noncancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred four PZ lesions in 85 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging were retrospectively analyzed with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping, MRF, and targeted biopsy (cognitive or in-gantry). A radiologist blinded to pathology drew regions of interest on targeted lesions and visually normal peripheral zone on MRF and ADC maps. Mean T1, T2, and ADC were analyzed using linear mixed models. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate T1 and T2 relaxometry combined with ADC in differentiating pathologic groups.

RESULTS

Targeted biopsy revealed 63 cancers (low-grade cancer/Gleason score 6 = 10, clinically significant cancer/Gleason score ≥7 = 53), 15 prostatitis, and 26 negative biopsies. Prostate cancer T1, T2, and ADC (mean ± SD, 1660 ± 270 milliseconds, 56 ± 20 milliseconds, 0.70 × 10 ± 0.24 × 10 mm/s) were significantly lower than prostatitis (mean ± SD, 1730 ± 350 milliseconds, 77 ± 36 milliseconds, 1.00 × 10 ± 0.30 × 10 mm/s) and negative biopsies (mean ± SD, 1810 ± 250 milliseconds, 71 ± 37 milliseconds, 1.00 × 10 ± 0.33 × 10 mm/s). For cancer versus prostatitis, ADC was sensitive and T2 specific with comparable area under curve (AUC; (AUCT2 = 0.71, AUCADC = 0.79, difference between AUCs not significant P = 0.37). T1 + ADC (AUCT1 + ADC = 0.83) provided the best separation between cancer and negative biopsies. Low-grade cancer T2 and ADC (mean ± SD, 75 ± 29 milliseconds, 0.96 × 10 ± 0.34 × 10 mm/s) were significantly higher than clinically significant cancers (mean ± SD, 52 ± 16 milliseconds, 0.65 ± 0.18 × 10 mm/s), and T2 + ADC (AUCT2 + ADC = 0.91) provided the best separation.

CONCLUSIONS

T1 and T2 relaxometry combined with ADC mapping may be useful for quantitative characterization of prostate cancer grades and differentiating cancer from noncancers for PZ lesions seen on T2-weighted images.

The role of a template-assisted cognitive transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with benign transrectal prostate biopsies: a preliminary experience

Introduction

Urologists are commonly facing the dilemma of elevating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels despite a series of negative prostate biopsy results. Although fusion biopsies are being used increasingly, they are not available in many centers. We evaluated the prostate cancer detection rate using transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) template-guided cognitive biopsy.

Material and methods

Twenty-two patients with a suspicious lesion on MRI were enrolled into this study and underwent a repeated biopsy. All procedures were done under anesthesia and with antibiotic prophylaxis. Brachytherapy template was applied in each case.

Results

The median age, PSA and prostate volume were 67 years, 9.2 ng/ml, and 65 ml, respectively. The average number of biopsy cores was 24. Nine patients (41%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The grade distribution was Gleason score 7 for 5 patients, and Gleason score 6 for 4 patients. No major complications occurred.

Conclusions

Transperineal MRI template-guided cognitive prostate biopsy appears to be a safe procedure, which helps to detect significant cancer. The biopsy-associated adverse events are negligible.

Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. -0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 - 6.28]; p=0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.

Association of training level and outcome of software-based image fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsies

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of experience on the outcome of image fusion-guided prostate biopsies performed by urologists working at a high-volume medical center.

METHODS

The first 210 consecutive fusion biopsies were analyzed following installation of the software-based biopsy platform Artemis™ (Eigen, USA). The impact of training was measured in terms of changes in prostate cancer detection rates and biopsy duration over time. We sought to identify a threshold of experience for urologists, which predicts higher detection rates of targeted biopsies. The influence of various factors on prostate cancer detection rates was evaluated using bi- and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two urologists (n = 9 senior urologists, n = 13 urological residents) performed targeted biopsies followed by systematic 12-core biopsies. Overall, targeted biopsies yielded a positive result in 39.6% of 260 suspicious MRI lesions. A subgroup analysis of the six urologists who performed more than ten biopsies was then conducted, and their level of experience (i.e., performance of more than eight biopsies) was found to be associated with higher detection rates than those with less experience (49.0% and 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) in the targeted biopsies. Experience was likewise a significant and independent predictor of a cancer-positive targeted biopsy (p = 0.002). Experienced senior physicians did not outperform residents in their targeted biopsy results. Further, biopsy duration correlated negatively (r = - 0.5931, p < 0.001) with the total number of biopsies performed for all subgroups during the period of assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience is an important predictor of the rate of detection in targeted biopsies using software-based biopsy platforms with semi-robotic assistance. Moreover, the performance of just a few procedures appears sufficient to increase biopsy effectiveness significantly. Lastly, supervision by experts is recommended during the training phase.

Distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy: comparison of an Asian and European cohort

Background

This study aimed to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score and the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy between a Chinese and a Dutch cohort.

Materials and methods

Our study includes 316 men from Shanghai Changhai Hospital, China, and 266 men from the Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. All men had a suspicion for prostate cancer (PCa) and were offered an multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scan.

Results

The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different between the two cohorts (P = 0.008). In the Chinese cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the detection rate for high-grade PCa (Gleason ≥7) was 37.3% by systematic biopsy and 35.5% by MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.80 for PCa and 0.75 for high-grade PCa. MRI-targeted biopsy achieved slightly higher sensitivity for PCa (0.82) and high-grade PCa (0.76). In the Dutch cohort of PI-RADS ≥3, the high-grade PCa detection rate was 44.4% and 54.5% for systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy. The sensitivity of systematic biopsy was 0.93 for PCa and 0.81 for high-grade PCa. By MRI-targeted biopsy, the sensitivity was 0.85 for PCa and 0.97 for high-grade PCa.

Conclusions

The distribution of the PI-RADS score was different with more PI-RADS 4/5 in the Chinese cohort. Applying a PI-RADS ≥3 cutoff resulted in a favorable overall sensitivity. MRI-targeted biopsy showed a higher sensitivity in the detection of high-grade PCa than systematic biopsy. The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy for both PCa and high-grade PCa in the Dutch cohort was superior to those in the Chinese cohort.

Analysis of histological findings obtained combining US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsies with systematic US biopsies: mp-MRI role in prostate cancer detection and false negative

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI correlating US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsy with systematic random US-guided biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

137 suspected prostatic abnormalities were identified on mp-MRI (1.5T) in 96 patients and classified according to PI-RADS score v2. All target lesions underwent US/mp-MRI fusion biopsy and prostatic sampling was completed by US-guided systematic random 12-core biopsies. Histological analysis and Gleason score were established for all the samples, both target lesions defined by mp-MRI, and random biopsies. PI-RADS score was correlated with the histological results, divided in three groups (benign tissue, atypia and carcinoma) and with Gleason groups, divided in four categories considering the new Grading system of the ISUP 2014, using t test. Multivariate analysis was used to correlate PI-RADS and Gleason categories to PSA level and abnormalities axial diameter. When the random core biopsies showed carcinoma (mp-MRI false-negatives), PSA value and lesions Gleason median value were compared with those of carcinomas identified by mp-MRI (true-positives), using t test.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant difference between PI-RADS score in carcinoma, atypia and benign lesions groups (4.41, 3.61 and 3.24, respectively) and between PI-RADS score in Gleason < 7 group and Gleason > 7 group (4.14 and 4.79, respectively). mp-MRI performance was more accurate for lesions > 15 mm and in patients with PSA > 6 ng/ml. In systematic sampling, 130 (11.25%) mp-MRI false-negative were identified. There was no statistic difference in Gleason median value (7.0 vs 7.06) between this group and the mp-MRI true-positives, but a significant lower PSA median value was demonstrated (7.08 vs 7.53 ng/ml).

CONCLUSION

mp-MRI remains the imaging modality of choice to identify PCa lesions. Integrating US-guided random sampling with US/mp-MRI fusion target lesions sampling, 3.49% of false-negative were identified.

Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve

BACKGROUND

To determine the effect of urologist and radiologist learning curves and changes in MRI-TRUS fusion platform during 9 years of NCI's experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/TRUS fusion biopsy.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mpMRI followed by fusion biopsy (Fbx) and systematic biopsy (Sbx) from 2007 to 2016 was reviewed. The patients were stratified based on the timing of first biopsy. Cohort 1 (7/2007-12/2010) accounted for learning curve. Cohort 2 (1/2011-5/2013) and cohort 3 (5/2013-4/2016) included patients biopsied prior to and after debut of a new software platform, respectively. Clinically significant (CS) disease was defined as Gleason 7 (3+4) or higher. McNemar's test compared cancer detection rates (CDRs) of Sbx and Fbx between time periods.

RESULTS

1528 patients were included in the study with 230, 537 and 761 patients included in three respective cohorts. Median age (interquartile range) was 61.0 (±9.0), 62.0 (±7.3), and 64.0 (±11.0) years in three cohorts, respectively (P<0.001). Fbx and Sbx had comparable CS CDR in cohort 1 (24.8 vs 22.2%, P=0.377). Fbx detected significantly more CS disease compared to Sbx in the following two periods (cohort 2: 31.5 vs 25.0%, P=0.001; cohort 3: 36.4 vs 30.3%, P<0.001) and detected significantly less low risk disease in the same period (cohort 2: 14.5 vs 19.6%, P<0.001; cohort 3: 12.6 vs 16.7%, P<0.001). Even after multivariate adjustment with age, PSA, race, clinical stage and MRI suspicion score, Fbx CS cancer detection increased in successive cohorts (cohort 2: OR 2.23, P=0.043; cohort 3: OR 2.92, P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In the past 9 years, there has been significant improvement in the accuracy of Fbx. Our results show that after an early learning period, Fbx detected higher rates of CS cancer and lower rates of clinically insignificant cancer than Sbx. Software advances allowed for even greater detection of CS disease.

Role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a beneficial strategy for management of low risk prostate cancer (PCa) and prevention of overtreatment of indolent disease. However, selection of patients for AS using traditional 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy is prone to sampling error and presents a challenge for accurate risk stratification. In fact, around a third of men are upgraded on repeat biopsy which disqualifies them as appropriate AS candidates. This uncertainty affects adoption of AS among patients and physicians, leading to current AS protocols involving repetitive prostate biopsies and unclear triggers for progression to definitive treatment. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to overcome some of these limitations through localization of significant tumors in the prostate. In conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, improved sampling and detection of clinically significant PCa can help streamline the process of selecting suitable men for AS and early exclusion of men who require definitive treatment. MRI can also help minimize the invasive nature of monitoring for disease progression while on AS. Men with stable MRI findings have high negative predictive value for Gleason upgrade on subsequently biopsy, suggesting that men may potentially be monitored by serial MRI examinations with biopsy reserved for significant changes on imaging. Targeted biopsy on AS also allows for specific sampling of concerning lesions, although further data is necessary to evaluate the relative contribution of systematic and targeted biopsy in detecting the 25-30% of men who progress on AS. Further research is also warranted to better understand the nature of clinically significant cancers that are missed on MRI and why certain men have progression of disease that is not visible on prostate MRI. Consensus is also needed over what constitutes progression on MRI, when prostate biopsy can be safely avoided, and how to best utilize this additional information in current AS protocols. Despite these challenges, prostate MRI, either alone or in conjunction with MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, has the potential to significantly improve our current AS paradigm and rates of AS adoption among patients moving forward.

MRI findings in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: does dutasteride make MRI visible lesions less conspicuous? Results from a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate changes in the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo.

METHODS

We analysed 37 men, randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 18) or placebo (n = 19), undergoing 3T multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) scans at baseline and 6 months. Images were reviewed blind to treatment allocation and clinical information. Mean ADC of peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones, and MR-suspicious lesions were compared between groups over 6 months. Conspicuity was defined as the PZ divided by tumour ADC, and its change over 6 months was assessed.

RESULTS

A decrease in mean conspicuity in the dutasteride group (but not the controls) was seen over 6 months (1.54 vs 1.38; p = 0.025). Absolute changes in ADC and conspicuity were significantly different between placebo and dutasteride groups at 6 months: (-0.03 vs 0.08, p = 0.033) and (0.11 vs -0.16, p = 0.012), as were percentage changes in the same parameters: (-2.27% vs 8.56% p = 0.048) and (9.25% vs -9.89% p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Dutasteride was associated with increased tumour ADC and reduced conspicuity. A lower threshold for triggering biopsy might be considered in men on dutasteride undergoing mpMRI for prostate cancer.

KEY POINTS

• Dutasteride increases ADC and reduces conspicuity in small mpMRI-visible prostate cancers. • Knowledge of dutasteride exposure is important in the interpretation of prostate mpMRI. • A lower threshold for triggering biopsy may be appropriate on dutasteride.

Updated clinical results of active surveillance of very-low-risk prostate cancer in Korean men: 8 years of follow-up

Purpose

Update and reanalysis of our experience of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in Korea.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, single-arm, cohort study was initiated in January 2008. Patients were selected according to the following criteria: Gleason sum ≤6 with single positive core with ≤30% core involvement, clinical stage≤T1c, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)≤10 ng/mL, and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results. Follow-up was by PSA measurement every 6 months, prostate biopsies at 1 year and then every 2–3 years, and MRI every year.

Results

A total of 80 patients were treated with AS. Median follow-up was 52 months (range, 6–96 months). Of them, 39 patients (48.8%) discontinued AS for various reasons (17, disease progression; 9, patient preference; 10, watchful waiting due to old age; 3, follow-up loss; 2, death). The probability of progression was 14.0% and 42.9% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Overall survival was 97.5%. PCa-specific survival was 100%. Progression occurred in 5 of 7 patients (71.4%) with a prostate volume less than 30 mL, 7 of 40 patients (17.5%) with a prostate volume of 30 to 50 mL, and 5 of 33 patients (15.2%) with a prostate volume of 50 mL or larger. There were 8 detectable positive lesions on follow-up MRI. Of them, 6 patients (75%) had actual progressed disease.

Conclusions

Small prostate volume was associated with a tendency for cancer progression. MRI was helpful and promising for managing AS. Nevertheless, regular biopsies should be performed. AS is a safe and feasible treatment option for very-low-risk PCa in Korea. However, AS should continue to be used in carefully selected patients.

The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients

BACKGROUND

The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these "blind" systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ≥7) compared between the three biopsy protocols.

DISCUSSION

This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.

Prostate cancer screening in Europe and Asia

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide and even ranks first in Europe. Although Asia is known as the region with the lowest PCa incidence, it has been rising rapidly over the last 20 years mostly due to the introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Randomized PCa screening studies in Europe show a mortality reduction in favor of PSA-based screening but coincide with high proportions of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Conclusive data on the value of PSA-based screening and hence the balance between harms and benefits in Asia is still lacking. Because of known racial variations, Asian countries should not directly apply the European screening models. Like in the western world also in Asia, new predictive markers, tools and risk stratification strategies hold great potential to improve the early detection of PCa and to reduce the worldwide existing negative aspects of PSA-based PCa screening.

The role of imaging in the diagnosis of primary prostate cancer

Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are key imaging modalities in prostate cancer diagnosis. MRI offers a range of intrinsic contrast mechanisms (T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), MR spectroscopy (MRS)) and extrinsic contrast-generating options based on tumour vascular state following injection of weakly paramagnetic agents such as gadolinium. Together these parameters are referred to as multiparametric (mp)MRI and are used for detecting and guiding biopsy and staging prostate cancer. Although sensitivity of mpMRI is <75% for disease detection, specificity is >90% and a standardised reporting system together with MR-guided targeted biopsy is the optimal diagnostic pathway. Shear wave ultrasound elastography is a new technique which also holds promise for future studies. This article describes the developments in imaging the primary site of prostate cancer and reviews their current and future utility for screening, diagnosis and T-staging the disease.