Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy

Expect the unexpected: investigating discordant prostate MRI and biopsy results

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate discrepant radio-pathological outcomes in biopsy-naïve patients undergoing prostate MRI and to provide insights into the underlying causes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 2780 biopsy-naïve patients undergoing prostate MRI at a tertiary referral centre between October 2015 and June 2022. Exclusion criteria were biopsy not performed, indeterminate MRI findings (PI-RADS 3), and clinically insignificant PCa (Gleason score 3 + 3). Patients with discrepant findings between MRI and biopsy results were categorised into two groups: MRI-negative/Biopsy-positive and MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative (biopsy-positive defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). An expert uroradiologist reviewed discrepant cases, retrospectively re-assigning PI-RADS scores, identifying any missed MRI targets, and evaluating the quality of MRI scans. Potential explanations for discrepancies included MRI overcalls (including known pitfalls), benign pathology findings, and biopsy targeting errors.

RESULTS

Patients who did not undergo biopsy (n = 1258) or who had indeterminate MRI findings (n = 204), as well as those with clinically insignificant PCa (n = 216), were excluded, with a total of 1102 patients analysed. Of these, 32/1,102 (3%) were classified as MRI-negative/biopsy-positive and 117/1102 (11%) as MRI-positive/biopsy-negative. In the MRI-negative/Biopsy-positive group, 44% of studies were considered non-diagnostic quality. Upon retrospective image review, target lesions were identified in 28% of cases. In the MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative group, 42% of cases were considered to be MRI overcalls, and 32% had an explanatory benign pathological finding, with biopsy targeting errors accounting for 11% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy, with low occurrences of discrepant findings as defined. Common reasons for MRI-positive/Biopsy-negative cases included explanatory benign findings and MRI overcalls.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study highlights the importance of optimal prostate MRI image quality and expertise in reducing diagnostic errors, improving patient outcomes, and guiding appropriate management decisions in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

KEY POINTS

• Discrepancies between prostate MRI and biopsy results can occur, with higher numbers of MRI-positive/biopsy-negative relative to MRI-negative/biopsy-positive cases. • MRI-positive/biopsy-negative cases were mostly overcalls or explainable by benign biopsy findings. • In about one-third of MRI-negative/biopsy-positive cases, a target lesion was retrospectively identified.

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.

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.

Combination of MRI prostate and 18F-DCFPyl PSMA PET/CT detects all clinically significant prostate cancers in treatment-naive patients: An international multicentre retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical and biochemical assessment and biopsies can miss clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) in up to 20% of patients and diagnose clinically insignificant tumours leading to overtreatment. This retrospective study analyses the accuracy of ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET/CT in detecting csPCa as a primary diagnostic tool and directly compares it with mpMRI prostate in treatment-naive patients. The two modalities are then correlated to determine whether they are better in combination, than either alone.

METHODS

This is a retrospective dual-institution study of patients who underwent contemporaneous MRI and PSMA-PET between January 2017 and March 2020 with histologic confirmation. The images were re-reviewed and concordance between modalities assessed. Results were compared with histopathology to determine the ability of MRI and PSMA-PET to detect csPCA.

RESULTS

MRI and PSMA-PET detected the same index lesion in 90.8% of cases with a kappa of 0.82. PET detected an additional 6.2% of index lesions which were MRI occult. MRI detected an additional 3.1% which were PET occult. No additional csPCa was identified on pathology which was not seen on imaging. The sensitivity of PSMA-PET in detecting csPCa is 96.7% and that of MRI is 93.4% with no statistically significant difference between the two (P = 0.232). Both modalities detected all four cases of non-csPCa with these being considered false positives.

CONCLUSION

Both mpMRI and 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA-PET/CT have high sensitivity for detecting csPCa with high agreement between modalities. There were no synchronous csPCa lesions detected on pathology that were not detected on imaging too.

Evaluation of transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound-derived prostate specific antigen (PSA) density and clinical utility compared to MRI prostate volumes: A feasibility study

Purpose

To investigate the accuracy of surface-based ultrasound-derived PSA-density (US-PSAD) versus gold-standard MRI-PSAD as a risk-stratification tool.

Methods

Single-centre prospective study of patients undergoing MRI for suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Four combinations of US-volumes were calculated using transperineal (TP) and transabdominal (TA) views, with triplanar measurements to calculate volume and US-PSAD. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare US and MRI volumes. Categorical comparison of MRI-PSAD and US-PSAD was performed at PSAD cut-offs <0.15, 0.15–0.20, and >0.20 ng/mL² to assess agreement with MRI-PSAD risk-stratification decisions.

Results

64 men were investigated, mean age 69 years and PSA 7.0 ng/mL. 36/64 had biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer (18 Gleason 3+3, 18 Gleason ≥3+4). Mean MRI-derived gland volume was 60 mL, compared to 56 mL for TA-US, and 65 mL TP-US. ICC demonstrated good agreement for all US volumes with MRI, with highest agreement for transabdominal US, followed by combined TA/TP volumes. Risk-stratification decisions to biopsy showed concordant agreement between triplanar MRI-PSAD and ultrasound-PSAD in 86–91% and 92–95% at PSAD thresholds of >0.15 ng/mL² and >0.12 ng/mL², respectively. Decision to biopsy at threshold >0.12 ng/mL², demonstrated sensitivity ranges of 81–100%, specificity 85–100%, PPV 86–100% and NPV 83–100%. Transabdominal US provided optimal sensitivity of 100% for this clinical decision, with specificity 85%, and transperineal US provided optimal specificity of 100%, with sensitivity 87%.

Conclusion

Transperineal-US and combined TA-TP US-derived PSA density values compare well with standard MRI-derived values and could be used to provide accurate PSAD at presentation and inform the need for further investigations.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the selection and follow-up of patients undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. An European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) review

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, active surveillance (AS) has gained popularity as a safe and reasonable option for patients with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the latest information regarding the use of mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance (AS) for the management of prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed-based, English literature search was conducted through February 2020. We selected the most relevant original articles, meta-analyses and systematic reviews that could provide important information.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The great importance of mpMRI of the prostate in the setting of PCa diagnosis is its ability to visualize primarily high-grade cancerous lesions potentially missed on systematic biopsies. In several studies, mpMRI has shown an improved performance over clinically based models for identifying candidates which will benefit the most from AS. Although data on prostate mpMRI during follow-up of men under AS is sparse, it holds the probability to improve significantly AS programs by a more precise selection of optimal candidates, a more accurate identification of disease progression and a reduction in number of biopsies. The goal of reassessment of patients undergoing AS is to find the most effective moment to change attitude to active treatment.

CONCLUSION

The value of mpMRI has been recognized due to its high negative predictive value (NPV) for lesion upgrading in low-risk PCa patients. The improvement in imaging detection, and precise diagnosis with mpMRI could reduce misclassifications at initial diagnosis and during follow-up, reducing the number of biopsies.

Comparison of initial and second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for transperineal template-guided biopsies with MRI-Ultrasound fusion

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.

METHODS

The evaluated data included age, PSA (ng/ml), PSA density, Gleason score, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume of 149 patients. Twenty-seven patients (18%) had no previous prostate biopsy, 114 patients (77%) had a previous negative biopsy, and 8 patients (5%) were on active surveillance. Using PI-RADS v2 scores for mpMRI a second report was performed by a specialist uroradiologist. In all cases a subsequent transperineal biopsy was performed with at least 2 cores per target and additional background systemic cores. Initial and second-opinion radiology reports were evaluated for detection of any cancer and Gleason score (GS) 7-10 cancer, including positive predictive value and negative (NPV) and compared by Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

At transperineal biopsy, 51 % (76/149) of patients had a GS 6-10 prostate cancer (PCa), 27 % (40/149) of patients had a GS 3 + 3 PCa and 12 % (18/149) a GS 3 + 4 and 12 % (18/149) had a GS ≥4 + 3 PCa. Agreement between initial and second-opinion reads was observed in 57.7% (86/149; kappa value = 0.32). The detection of clinically significant cancers with second-opinion reads was significantly higher (0.61; 17/28) compared to initial reads (0.35; 17/49); P = 0.034.

CONCLUSIONS

Second reading of prostate mpMRIs by subspecialised uroradiologists significantly improved the positive predictive value for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and showed a trend towards improved NPV for MRI-negative cases where biopsy could be safely avoided. Urologists should be aware that the experience of the reporter will affect the report when making decisions if and how to obtain biopsies. Reporter experience may help to reduce overcalling and avoid over-targeting of lesions.

Multicenter Multireader Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Attention Mapping System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer With Multiparametric MRI

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in a multicenter dataset the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) detection system with attention mapping compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpretation in the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. MRI examinations from five institutions were included in this study and were evaluated by nine readers. In the first round, readers evaluated mpMRI studies using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. After 4 weeks, images were again presented to readers along with the AI-based detection system output. Readers accepted or rejected lesions within four AI-generated attention map boxes. Additional lesions outside of boxes were excluded from detection and categorization. The performances of readers using the mpMRI-only and AI-assisted approaches were compared. RESULTS. The study population included 152 case patients and 84 control patients with 274 pathologically proven cancer lesions. The lesion-based AUC was 74.9% for MRI and 77.5% for AI with no significant difference (p = 0.095). The sensitivity for overall detection of cancer lesions was higher for AI than for mpMRI but did not reach statistical significance (57.4% vs 53.6%, p = 0.073). However, for transition zone lesions, sensitivity was higher for AI than for MRI (61.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.001). Reading time was longer for AI than for MRI (4.66 vs 4.03 minutes, p < 0.001). There was moderate interreader agreement for AI and MRI with no significant difference (58.7% vs 58.5%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSION. Overall sensitivity was only minimally improved by use of the AI system. Significant improvement was achieved, however, in the detection of transition zone lesions with use of the AI system at the cost of a mean of 40 seconds of additional reading time.

Utilization of Multiparametric MRI of Prostate in Patients under Consideration for or Already in Active Surveillance: Correlation with Imaging Guided Target Biopsy

This study sought to assess the value of multiparametric magnetic resonance image (mp-MRI) in patients with a prostate cancer (PCa) Gleason score of 6 or less under consideration for or already in active surveillance and to determine the rate of upgrading by target biopsy. Three hundred and fifty-four consecutive men with an initial transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy-confirmed PCa Gleason score of 6 or less under clinical consideration for or already in active surveillance underwent mp-MRI and were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred and nineteen of 354 patients had cancer-suspicious regions (CSRs) at mp-MRI. Each CSR was assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score based on PI-RADS v2. One hundred and eight of 119 patients underwent confirmatory imaging-guided biopsy for CSRs. Pathology results including Gleason score (GS) and percentage of specimens positive for PCa were recorded. Associations between PI-RADS scores and findings at target biopsy were evaluated using logistic regression. At target biopsy, 81 of 108 patients had PCa (75%). Among them, 77 patients had upgrading (22%, 77 of 354 patients). One hundred and forty-six CSRs in 108 patients had PI-RADS 3 n = 28, 4 n = 66, and 5 n = 52. The upgraded rate for each category of CSR was for PI-RADS 3 (5 of 28, 18%), 4 (47 of 66, 71%) and 5 (49 of 52, 94%). Using logistic regression analysis, differences in PI-RADS scores from 3 to 5 are significantly associated with the probability of disease upgrade (20%, 73%, and 96% for PI-RADS score of 3, 4, and 5, respectively). Adding mp-MRI to patients under consideration for or already in active surveillance helps to identify undiagnosed PCa of a higher GS or higher volume resulting in upgrading in 22%.

Location and Grade of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed by Transperineal Template-guided Mapping Biopsy After Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the location and grade of prostate cancer diagnosed by transperineal template-guided mapping (TTMB) after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This analysis consisted of 1118 consecutive patients who underwent TTMB from January 2005 to August 2015. Eight hundred thirty-five underwent TTMB after at least 1 negative TRUS biopsy and 283 underwent TTMB as the first biopsy procedure. The study population was divided into cohorts based on the number of prior TRUS biopsy sessions (0, 1, 2, and ≥3). No patient underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Differences in location and cancer grade detected on TTMB were evaluated as a function of the number of prior TRUS biopsies.

RESULTS

Of the 1118 patients, 679 were diagnosed with prostate cancer. This included 208, 325, 104, and 42 patients who underwent 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 prior TRUS biopsies. The incidence of cancer detection on TTMB decreased as the number of prior TRUS biopsies increased (73.5% vs. 62.4% vs. 51.7% vs. 37.2%, P<0.001); however, it became increasingly likely that TTMB would detect anterior prostate only as the number of prior TRUS biopsies increased (P=0.007). Moreover, the incidence of high grade cancer (Gleason score ≥7) in the anterior gland increased with the number of previous TRUS biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

TTMB detected prostate cancer in over half of the patients with one or more negative TRUS biopsies. The majority of TTMB detected cancers were Gleason score ≥7. As the number of prior TRUS biopsies increased, there was a commensurate increase in the proportion of high-grade, anterior only disease.

Literature review of the burden of prostate cancer in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most frequently reported cancer in males in Europe, and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of the current review was to characterize the clinical, economic and humanistic burden of disease associated with prostate cancer in France, Germany, the UK and Canada.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting incidence and/or mortality rates, costs and health state utilities associated with prostate cancer in the settings of interest. For inclusion, studies were required to be published in English in full-text form from 2006 onwards.

RESULTS

Incidence studies showed that in all settings the incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially over the past two decades, driven in part by increased uptake of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening leading to earlier identification of tumors, but which has also led to over-treatment, compounding the economic burden of disease. Mortality rates have declined over the same time frame, driven by earlier detection and improvements in treatment. Both prostate cancer itself, as well as treatment and treatment-related complications, are associated with reduced quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden, whilst earlier detection and aggressive treatment is associated with improved survival, over-treatment of men with indolent tumors compounds the already significant burden of disease and treatment can lead to long-term side effects including impotence and impaired urinary and/or bowel function. There is currently an unmet clinical need for diagnostic and/or prognostic tools that facilitate personalized prostate cancer treatment, and potentially reduce the clinical, economic and humanistic burden of invasive cancer treatment.

Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the value of second-opinion evaluation of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre for the detection of significant cancer in transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Evaluation of prospectively acquired initial and second-opinion radiology reports of 158 patients who underwent MRI at regional hospitals prior to transperineal MR/untrasound fusion biopsy at a tertiary referral centre over a 3-year period. Gleason score (GS) 7-10 cancer, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value (±95 % confidence intervals) were calculated and compared by Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Disagreement between initial and tertiary centre second-opinion reports was observed in 54 % of cases (86/158). MRIs had a higher NPV for GS 7-10 in tertiary centre reads compared to initial reports (0.89 ± 0.08 vs 0.72 ± 0.16; p = 0.04), and a higher PPV in the target area for all cancer (0.61 ± 0.12 vs 0.28 ± 0.10; p = 0.01) and GS 7-10 cancer (0.43 ± 0.12 vs 0.2 3 ± 0.09; p = 0.02). For equivocal suspicion, the PPV for GS 7-10 was 0.12 ± 0.11 for tertiary centre and 0.11 ± 0.09 for initial reads; p = 1.00.

CONCLUSIONS

Second readings of prostate MRI by subspecialised uroradiologists at a tertiary centre significantly improved both NPV and PPV. Reporter experience may help to reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions.

KEY POINTS

• Multiparametric MRIs were more often called negative in subspecialist reads (41 % vs 20 %). • Second readings of prostate mpMRIs by subspecialist uroradiologists significantly improved NPV and PPV. • Reporter experience may reduce overcalling and avoid overtargeting of lesions. • Greater education and training of radiologists in prostate MRI interpretation is advised.

The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) on positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect Gleason score ≥7 cancer in a repeat biopsy setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 514 men with previous prostate biopsy showing no or Gleason score 6 cancer. All had mpMRI, graded 1-5 on a Likert scale for cancer suspicion, and subsequent targeted and 24-core systematic image-fusion guided transperineal biopsy in 2013-2015. The NPVs and PPVs of mpMRIs for detecting Gleason score ≥7 cancer were calculated (±95% confidence intervals) for PSAD ≤0.1, 0.1-0.2, ≤0.2 and >0.2 ng/mL/mL, and compared by chi-square test for linear trend.

RESULTS

Gleason score ≥7 cancer was detected in 31% of the men. The NPV of Likert 1-2 mpMRI was 0.91 (±0.04) with a PSAD of ≤0.2 ng/mL/mL and 0.71 (±0.16) with a PSAD of >0.2 ng/mL/mL (P = 0.003). For Likert 3 mpMRI, PPV was 0.09 (±0.06) with a PSAD of ≤0.2 ng/mL/mL and 0.44 (±0.19) with a PSAD of >0.2 ng/mL/mL (P = 0.002). PSAD also significantly affected the PPV of Likert 4-5 mpMRI lesions: the PPV was 0.47 (±0.08) with a PSAD of ≤0.2 ng/mL/mL and 0.66 (±0.10) with a PSAD of >0.2 ng/mL/mL (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a repeat biopsy setting, a PSAD of ≤0.2 ng/mL/mL is associated with low detection of Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer, not only in men with negative mpMRI, but also in men with equivocal imaging. Surveillance, rather than repeat biopsy, may be appropriate for these men. Conversely, biopsies are indicated in men with a high PSAD, even if an mpMRI shows no suspicious lesion, and in men with an mpMRI suspicious for cancer, even if the PSAD is low.

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a standard management option for men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer, and contemporary data indicate that use of AS is increasing in the United States and abroad. In the favorable-risk population, reports from multiple prospective cohorts indicate a less than 1% likelihood of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality over intermediate-term follow-up (median 5-6 years). Higher-risk men participating in AS appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but these populations have not been adequately studied to this point. Although monitoring on AS largely relies on serial prostate biopsy, a procedure associated with considerable morbidity, there is a need for improved diagnostic tools for patient selection and monitoring. Revisions from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference have yielded a more intuitive reporting system and detailed reporting of low-intermediate grade tumors, which should facilitate the practice of AS. Meanwhile, emerging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue-based molecular testing have shown prognostic value in some populations. At this time, however, these instruments have not been sufficiently studied to consider their routine, standardized use in the AS setting. Future studies should seek to identify those platforms most informative in the AS population and propose a strategy by which promising diagnostic tools can be safely and efficiently incorporated into clinical practice.

The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges

OBJECTIVE

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a management strategy for preventing overtreatment of indolent prostate cancer. Selection of patients for AS has traditionally proved challenging and resulted in 20-30% misclassification rates. MRI has potential to help overcome this limitation, broaden selection criteria to increase recruitment, and minimize the invasive nature of AS follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The main issues surrounding MRI and AS are the heterogeneity of inclusion criteria, the definition of significant disease, and agreement about what constitutes radiologic progression. Prospective cohorts with MRI at enrollment and long-term follow-up are required to further address these issues.

Determination of the Role of Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate in Clinical Practice: Is Biopsy Still Necessary?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the negative predictive value (NPV) of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in routine clinical practice and to identify characteristics of patients for whom mpMRI fails to detect high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of consecutive men who received prostate mpMRI at our institution, interpreted by a clinical practice of academic radiologists. Between January 2012 and December 2015, 84 men without any magnetic resonance imaging suspicious regions according to prior institutional classification, or with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2 lesions according to the PI-RADS system, underwent standard template transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. Using these biopsy results, we calculated the NPV of mpMRI for the detection of PCa and identified patient risk factors for having a Gleason score ≥7 PCa on biopsy.

RESULTS

High-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was found on TRUS biopsy in 10.3% of biopsy-naive patients (NPV=89.7%), 16.7% of patients with previous negative biopsy (NPV=83.3%), and 13.3% of patients on active surveillance (NPV=86.6%). On multivariate analysis, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPTRC) estimated risk for high-grade PCa (as a continuous variable) was a significant predictor for high-grade PCa on biopsy (odds ratio 1.01, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Men with negative mpMRIs interpreted in a routine clinical setting have a significant risk of harboring Gleason score ≥7 PCa on a standard 12-region template biopsy, independent of indication. Standard template TRUS prostate biopsy should still be recommended for patients with negative mpMRI, particularly those with elevated PCPTRC estimated risk of high-grade PCa.

The Prostate Health Index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population

Both multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) have shown promise in predicting a positive biopsy in men with suspected prostate cancer. Here we investigated the value of combining both tests in men requiring a repeat biopsy. PHI scores were measured in men undergoing re-biopsy with an mpMRI image-guided transperineal approach (n = 279, 94 with negative mpMRIs). The PHI was assessed for ability to add value to mpMRI in predicting all or only significant cancers (Gleason ≥7). In this study adding PHI to mpMRI improved overall and significant cancer prediction (AUC 0.71 and 0.75) compared to mpMRI + PSA alone (AUC 0.64 and 0.69 respectively). At a threshold of ≥35, PHI + mpMRI demonstrated a NPV of 0.97 for excluding significant tumours. In mpMRI negative men, the PHI again improved prediction of significant cancers; AUC 0.76 vs 0.63 (mpMRI + PSA). Using a PHI≥35, only 1/21 significant cancers was missed and 31/73 (42%) men potentially spared a re-biopsy (NPV of 0.97, sensitivity 0.95). Decision curve analysis demonstrated clinically relevant utility of the PHI across threshold probabilities of 5-30%. In summary, the PHI adds predictive performance to image-guided detection of clinically significant cancers and has particular value in determining re-biopsy need in men with a negative mpMRI.

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a standard management option for men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer, and contemporary data indicate that use of AS is increasing in the United States and abroad. In the favorable-risk population, reports from multiple prospective cohorts indicate a less than 1% likelihood of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality over intermediate-term follow-up (median 5-6 years). Higher-risk men participating in AS appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but these populations have not been adequately studied to this point. Although monitoring on AS largely relies on serial prostate biopsy, a procedure associated with considerable morbidity, there is a need for improved diagnostic tools for patient selection and monitoring. Revisions from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference have yielded a more intuitive reporting system and detailed reporting of low-intermediate grade tumors, which should facilitate the practice of AS. Meanwhile, emerging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue-based molecular testing have shown prognostic value in some populations. At this time, however, these instruments have not been sufficiently studied to consider their routine, standardized use in the AS setting. Future studies should seek to identify those platforms most informative in the AS population and propose a strategy by which promising diagnostic tools can be safely and efficiently incorporated into clinical practice.