101
|
Kuhlmann PK, Chen M, Luu M, Naser-Tavakolian A, Kim HL, Saouaf R, Daskivich TJ. Predictors of disparity between targeted and in-zone systematic cores during transrectal MR/US-fusion prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2022; 40:162.e1-162.e7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.12.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Revised: 11/16/2021] [Accepted: 12/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
102
|
Panzone J, Byler T, Bratslavsky G, Goldberg H. Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications. Cancer Manag Res 2022; 14:1209-1228. [PMID: 35345605 PMCID: PMC8957299 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s265058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has been an invaluable tool in the assessment of prostate size, anatomy and aiding in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis for decades. Emerging techniques warrant an investigation into the efficacy of TRUS, how it compares to new techniques, and options to increase the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis. Currently, TRUS is used to guide both transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches with similar cancer detection rates, but lower rates of infection have been reported with the transperineal approach, while lower rates of urinary retention are often reported with the transrectal approach. Multiparametric MRI has substantial benefits for prostate cancer diagnosis and triage such as lesion location, grading, and can be combined with TRUS to perform fusion biopsies targeting specific lesions. Micro-ultrasound generates higher resolution images that traditional ultrasound and has been shown effective at diagnosing PCa, giving it the potential to become a future standard of care. Finally, high-intensity focused ultrasound focal therapy administered via TRUS has been shown to offer safe and effective short-term oncological control for localized disease with low morbidity, and the precise nature makes it a viable option for salvage and repeat therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Panzone
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| | - Timothy Byler
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| | | | - Hanan Goldberg
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
103
|
Kinnaird A, Brisbane W, Kwan L, Priester A, Chuang R, Barsa DE, Delfin M, Sisk A, Margolis D, Felker E, Hu J, Marks LS. A prostate cancer risk calculator: Use of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging data to predict biopsy outcome in North American men. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16:E161-E166. [PMID: 34672937 PMCID: PMC8923894 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A functional tool to optimize patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy (MRGB) is an unmet clinical need. We sought to develop a prostate cancer risk calculator (PCRC-MRI) that combines MRI and clinical characteristics to aid decision-making for MRGB in North American men. METHODS Two prospective registries containing 2354 consecutive men undergoing MRGB (September 2009 to April 2019) were analyzed. Patients were randomized into five groups, with one group randomly assigned to be the validation cohort against the other four groups as the discovery cohort. The primary outcome was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason grade group ≥2. Variables included age, ethnicity, digital rectal exam (DRE), prior biopsy, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and MRI score. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated from multivariate logistic regression comparing two models: one with clinical variables only (clinical) against a second combining clinical variables with MRI data (clinical+MRI). RESULTS csPCa was present in 942 (40%) of the 2354 men available for study. The positive and negative predictive values for csPCa in the clinical+MRI model were 57% and 89%, respectively. The area under the curve of the clinical+MRI model was superior to the clinical model in discovery (0.843 vs. 0.707, p<0.0001) and validation (0.888 vs. 0.757, p<0.0001) cohorts. Use of PCRC-MRI would have avoided approximately 16 unnecessary biopsies in every 100 men. Of all variables examined, Asian ethnicity was the most protective factor (OR 0.46, 0.29-0.75) while MRI score 5 indicated greatest risk (OR15.8, 10.5-23.9). CONCLUSIONS A risk calculator (PCRC-MRI), based on a large North American cohort, is shown to improve patient selection for MRGB, especially in preventing unnecessary biopsies. This tool is available at https://www.uclahealth.org/urology/prostate-cancer-riskcalculator and may help rationalize biopsy decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Kinnaird
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Wayne Brisbane
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Lorna Kwan
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Alan Priester
- Department of Bioengineering, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Ryan Chuang
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Danielle E. Barsa
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Merdie Delfin
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Anthony Sisk
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Daniel Margolis
- Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States
| | - Ely Felker
- Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Jim Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States
| | - Leonard S. Marks
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
104
|
Hamzaoui D, Montagne S, Renard-Penna R, Ayache N, Delingette H. Automatic zonal segmentation of the prostate from 2D and 3D T2-weighted MRI and evaluation for clinical use. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2022; 9:024001. [PMID: 35300345 PMCID: PMC8920492 DOI: 10.1117/1.jmi.9.2.024001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: An accurate zonal segmentation of the prostate is required for prostate cancer (PCa) management with MRI. Approach: The aim of this work is to present UFNet, a deep learning-based method for automatic zonal segmentation of the prostate from T2-weighted (T2w) MRI. It takes into account the image anisotropy, includes both spatial and channelwise attention mechanisms and uses loss functions to enforce prostate partition. The method was applied on a private multicentric three-dimensional T2w MRI dataset and on the public two-dimensional T2w MRI dataset ProstateX. To assess the model performance, the structures segmented by the algorithm on the private dataset were compared with those obtained by seven radiologists of various experience levels. Results: On the private dataset, we obtained a Dice score (DSC) of 93.90 ± 2.85 for the whole gland (WG), 91.00 ± 4.34 for the transition zone (TZ), and 79.08 ± 7.08 for the peripheral zone (PZ). Results were significantly better than other compared networks' ( p - value < 0.05 ). On ProstateX, we obtained a DSC of 90.90 ± 2.94 for WG, 86.84 ± 4.33 for TZ, and 78.40 ± 7.31 for PZ. These results are similar to state-of-the art results and, on the private dataset, are coherent with those obtained by radiologists. Zonal locations and sectorial positions of lesions annotated by radiologists were also preserved. Conclusions: Deep learning-based methods can provide an accurate zonal segmentation of the prostate leading to a consistent zonal location and sectorial position of lesions, and therefore can be used as a helping tool for PCa diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dimitri Hamzaoui
- Université Côte d'Azur, Inria, Epione Project-Team, Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne, France
| | - Sarah Montagne
- Sorbonne Université, Radiology Department, CHU La Pitié Salpétrière/Tenon, Paris, France
| | - Raphaële Renard-Penna
- Sorbonne Université, Radiology Department, CHU La Pitié Salpétrière/Tenon, Paris, France
| | - Nicholas Ayache
- Université Côte d'Azur, Inria, Epione Project-Team, Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne, France
| | - Hervé Delingette
- Université Côte d'Azur, Inria, Epione Project-Team, Sophia Antipolis, Valbonne, France
| |
Collapse
|
105
|
Cole AP, Langbein BJ, Giganti F, Fennessy FM, Tempany CM, Emberton M. Is perfect the enemy of good? Weighing the evidence for biparametric MRI in prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20210840. [PMID: 34826223 PMCID: PMC8978228 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Revised: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 11/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The role of multiparametric MRI in diagnosis, staging and treatment planning for prostate cancer is well established. However, there remain several challenges to widespread adoption. One such challenge is the duration and cost of the examination. Abbreviated exams omitting contrast-enhanced sequences may help address this challenge. In this review, we will discuss the rationale for biparametric MRI for detection and characterization of clinically significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy and synthesize the published literature. We will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages to this approach and lay out a conceptual cost/benefit analysis regarding adoption of biparametric MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Clare M. Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
106
|
Pellinen T, Sandeman K, Blom S, Turkki R, Hemmes A, Välimäki K, Eineluoto J, Kenttämies A, Nordling S, Kallioniemi O, Rannikko A, Mirtti T. Stromal FAP Expression is Associated with MRI Visibility and Patient Survival in Prostate Cancer. CANCER RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS 2022; 2:172-181. [PMID: 36874403 PMCID: PMC9980917 DOI: 10.1158/2767-9764.crc-21-0183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Some clinically significant prostate cancers are missed by MRI. We asked whether the tumor stroma in surgically treated localized prostate cancer lesions positive or negative with MRI are different in their cellular and molecular properties, and whether the differences are reflected to the clinical course of the disease. We profiled the stromal and immune cell composition of MRI-classified tumor lesions by applying multiplexed fluorescence IHC (mfIHC) and automated image analysis in a clinical cohort of 343 patients (cohort I). We compared stromal variables between MRI-visible lesions, invisible lesions, and benign tissue and assessed the predictive significance for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and disease-specific survival (DSS) using Cox regression and log-rank analysis. Subsequently, we carried out a prognostic validation of the identified biomarkers in a population-based cohort of 319 patients (cohort II). MRI true-positive lesions are different from benign tissue and MRI false-negative lesions in their stromal composition. CD163+ cells (macrophages) and fibroblast activation protein (FAP)+ cells were more abundant in MRI true-positive than in MRI false-negative lesions or benign areas. In MRI true-visible lesions, a high proportion of stromal FAP+ cells was associated with PTEN status and increased immune infiltration (CD8+, CD163+), and predicted elevated risk for BCR. High FAP phenotype was confirmed to be a strong indicator of poor prognosis in two independent patient cohorts using also conventional IHC. The molecular composition of the tumor stroma may determine whether early prostate lesions are detectable by MRI and associates with survival after surgical treatment. Significance These findings may have a significant impact on clinical decision making as more radical treatments may be recommended for men with a combination of MRI-visible primary tumors and FAP+ tumor stroma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teijo Pellinen
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kevin Sandeman
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finland.,Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Sami Blom
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Riku Turkki
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Oncology & Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Annabrita Hemmes
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Katja Välimäki
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Juho Eineluoto
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Anu Kenttämies
- Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stig Nordling
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finland
| | - Olli Kallioniemi
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Oncology & Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Antti Rannikko
- Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.,iCAN-Digital Precision Cancer Medicine Flagship, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tuomas Mirtti
- Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Finland.,Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,iCAN-Digital Precision Cancer Medicine Flagship, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
107
|
Michael J, Neuzil K, Altun E, Bjurlin MA. Current Opinion on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review. Cancer Manag Res 2022; 14:937-951. [PMID: 35256864 PMCID: PMC8898014 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s283299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Accurate staging is critical for treatment planning and prognosis in men with prostate Cancer. Prostate magnetic imaging resonance (MRI) may aid in the staging evaluation by verifying organ-confined status, assessing the status of the pelvic lymph nodes, and establishing the local extent of the tumor in patients being considered for therapy. MRI has a high specificity for diagnosing extracapsular extension, and therefore may impact the decision to perform nerve sparing prostatectomy, along with seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node metastases; however, its sensitivity remains limited. Current guidelines vary significantly regarding endorsing the use of MRI for staging locoregional disease. For high-risk prostate cancer, most guidelines recommend cross sectional imaging, including MRI, to evaluate for more extensive disease that may merit change in radiation field, extended androgen deprivation therapy, or guiding surgical planning. Although MRI offers reasonable performance characteristics to evaluate bone metastases, guidelines continue to support the use of bone scintigraphy. Emerging imaging technologies, including coupling positron emission tomography (PET) with MRI, have the potential to improve the accuracy of prostate cancer staging with the use of novel radiotracers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Michael
- University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Kevin Neuzil
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Ersan Altun
- Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Marc A Bjurlin
- Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Correspondence: Marc A Bjurlin, Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, 101 Manning Drive, 2nd Floor, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, Email
| |
Collapse
|
108
|
Li JL, Phillips D, Towfighi S, Wong A, Harris A, Black PC, Chang SD. Second-opinion reads in prostate MRI: added value of subspecialty interpretation and review at multidisciplinary rounds. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2022; 47:827-837. [PMID: 34914006 PMCID: PMC8674412 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03377-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2021] [Revised: 11/29/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Purpose This study evaluates the impact of second-opinion review of multiparametric prostate MRI for cancer detection by a multidisciplinary review board at a tertiary care center when compared with the initial community radiologist interpretation. Methods Cases were collected retrospectively from multidisciplinary prostate MRI rounds from 2017 to 2020 at a single tertiary care center. Patients with suspected prostate cancer or on active surveillance were referred for consideration of TRUS/MRI-fusion biopsy based on community-read prostate MRIs. All MRIs were re-read by subspecialized abdominal radiologists and a PI-RADS score assigned. Targeted fusion and 8–12 core systematic biopsy was performed in patients with PIRADS ≥ 3 lesions. Cohen kappa values were used to quantify interobserver agreement. Positive predictive value (PPV) was used to determine accuracy of PI-RADS score for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2). Results Three hundred and thirty-two lesions in 303 patients were reviewed and 252 lesions in 198 patients biopsied. The PI-RADS score was concordant in 60.5% of lesions, downgraded in 17.8%, and upgraded in 7.8%. Agreement between community and tertiary center interpretation was fair (κ = 0.354), with greater agreement for PI-RADS ≥ 4 (κ = 0.523) than PI-RADS ≥ 3 (κ = 0.456), and peripheral zone (κ = 0.419) than transition zone lesions (κ = 0.251). Prevalence of csPCa in biopsied lesions was 40.9%. Conclusion There is variability in community and tertiary care center interpretation of prostate MRI in cancer detection, with higher concordance rates for higher grade and peripheral zone lesions. These differences demonstrate the added value of multidisciplinary round review and highlight the need for ongoing education and feedback. Graphical abstract ![]()
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica L. Li
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion, 899 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Drew Phillips
- Department of Urology, Vancouver General Hospital, #190, 855 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Sohrab Towfighi
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion, 899 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Amanda Wong
- Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 317-2194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada
| | - Alison Harris
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion, 899 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Peter C. Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Level 6, 2775 Laurel St, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| | - Silvia D. Chang
- Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion, 899 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
109
|
Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Umbra, Penumbra, and Value of Perilesional Sampling. Eur Urol 2022; 82:303-310. [PMID: 35115177 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic prostate biopsies add to the cancer detection rate of targeted biopsies, but the explanation for that increased sensitivity is not yet clear. OBJECTIVE To determine and quantify the utility of perilesional biopsies in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Participants were 2048 men with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (grades 3-5) who underwent targeted and systematic prostate biopsy via MRI/ultrasound fusion at University of California Los Angeles and Cornell between 2011 and 2019. The study is a retrospective examination of prospectively acquired data. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS All biopsy cores (30191), locations of which had been stored digitally in the image-fusion device, were analyzed for tissue pathology and relationship with MRI lesions. A validated Matlab script was used to determine the distance between MRI lesions and cores containing csPCa (3552 cores from 927 men). Significance of distance measurements was determined by multilevel, multivariable logistic regression to account for within patient-biopsy correlation and control for patient characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 90% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 89-91) of csPCa cores (3206/3552) were located within a radius of 10 mm from the nearest lesion: 65% (95% CI = 63-67) within the region of interest (ROI) and 26% (95% CI = 24-27) outside the ROI but within the 10-mm "penumbra." The width of the penumbra or concentric band, which enclosed 90% of csPCa, was primarily related to MRI grade of lesion: grade 5, 5 mm; grade 4, 12 mm; grade 3, 16 mm. In 18% (95% CI = 15-20) of patients (166/927), csPCa was diagnosed only by sampling outside the MRI lesion, the yield decreasing with increasing distance. Limitations of MRI interpretation and fusion biopsy performance could affect the utility of these data in individual patients. CONCLUSIONS Perilesional biopsies, that is, samples taken from a band of 10-mm radius outside MRI lesions (the penumbra), contain most cores of csPCa that are not present within the lesion. These data may help increase the performance characteristics of targeted prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY We studied the locations of cancer within the prostate in men undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy. We found that not all cancers are located within the MRI lesion, but 90% (95% confidence interval = 89-91) of the cancers arewithin 1 cm of the lesions. Biopsies taken from both within and around MRI lesions provide greater sensitivity for cancer detection than samples taken from the lesion only.
Collapse
|
110
|
How many cores are enough? Optimizing the transperineal prostate biopsy template. Urol Oncol 2022; 40:191.e1-191.e7. [PMID: 35067430 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2021] [Revised: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE Most urologists use a 10-12 core template during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B). A similar consensus template does not exist for transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-B) including the optimal number and location of biopsy cores. We examined our institutional cohort to develop an optimal systematic template for TP-B. METHODS We prospectively monitored our first 200 consecutive free-hand TP-B. These included men who were biopsy naïve (n = 117), had elevated PSA with prior negative biopsy (n = 18), and men on active surveillance (n = 65). All men underwent a 20 core TP-B with each core placed in a separate specimen container. This allowed the 20-core TP-B to be easily broken down as though fewer cores had been taken in each patient. Ten, 12, and 16 core templates were designed a priori and compared within each patient to the 20 core template. The highest Grade Group (GG) at pathologic analysis was assigned to each biopsy. Primary outcome was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as ≥GG2. Secondary outcome was detection of GG1 prostate cancer. We performed sub-group analyses of biopsy naïve men and biopsy naïve men stratified by PSA density (<0.15 vs. ≥0.15 ng/mL/cc). An historic institutional cohort of 10-12 core TRUS-B (n = 170) was used to compare prostate cancer detection between techniques. P value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Clinically significant cancers were detected in 98 men (49%) using a 20 core TP-B technique. Had we sampled fewer cores we would have identified clinically significant cancers in 93 (47%, 16 core), 91 (46%, 12 core), and 82 (41%, 10 core) men. More clinically significant cancers were detected by the 20 core template compared to the 10 core template for both the whole cohort (49% vs. 41%, P = 0.02) and the biopsy naïve subset (48% vs. 40%, P = 0.05). Additional cores did not result in an increased detection of GG1 cancers (20-core: 35% vs. 10-core: 44%, P = 0.09). Less than one quarter of biopsy naïve men with a PSA density <0.15 were found to have clinically significant cancers. More clinically significant cancers were detected in the 12-core TP-B cohort compared to the 12-core TRUS-B series (46% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A 20 core TP-B systematic biopsy template detected a greater number of clinically significant prostate cancers compared to a 10 core TP template. Cancer detection was similar for 12, 16, and 20 core templates. Higher core numbers did not result in greater detection of GG1 tumors reflecting increased detection of concomitant ≥GG2 with greater sampling. We propose a minimum 12 core systematic biopsy template for men undergoing TP-B.
Collapse
|
111
|
Fasulo V, Buffi NM, Regis F, Paciotti M, Persico F, Maffei D, Uleri A, Saita A, Casale P, Hurle R, Lazzeri M, Guazzoni G, Lughezzani G. Use of high-resolution micro-ultrasound to predict extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer prior to surgery: a prospective single-institutional study. World J Urol 2022; 40:435-442. [PMID: 35001161 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03890-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We aim to evaluate the accuracy of micro-ultrasound (microUS) in predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) of Prostate Cancer (PCa) prior to surgery. METHODS Patients with biopsy-proven PCa scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) were prospectively recruited. The following MRI-derived microUS features were evaluated: capsular bulging, visible breach of the prostate capsule (visible extracapsular extension; ECE), presence of hypoechoic halo, and obliteration of the vesicle-prostatic angle. The ability of each feature to predict EPE was determined. RESULTS Overall, data from 140 patients were examined. All predictors were associated with non-organ-confined disease (p < 0.001). Final pathology showed that 79 patients (56.4%) had a pT2 disease and 61 (43.3%) ≥ pT3. Rate of non-organ-confined disease increased from 44% in those individuals with only 1 predictor (OR 7.71) to 92.3% in those where 4 predictors (OR 72.00) were simultaneously observed. The multivariate logistic regression model including clinical parameters showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 82.3% as compared to an AUC of 87.6% for the model including both clinical and microUS parameters. Presence of ECE at microUS predicted EPE with a sensitivity of 72.1% and a specificity of 88%, a negative predictive value of 80.5% and positive predictive value of 83.0%, with an AUC of 80.4%. CONCLUSIONS MicroUS can accurately predict EPE at the final pathology report in patients scheduled for RARP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vittorio Fasulo
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicolò Maria Buffi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. .,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
| | - Federica Regis
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Paciotti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Fancesco Persico
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Davide Maffei
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandro Uleri
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Saita
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Casale
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Rodolfo Hurle
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Lazzeri
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Guazzoni
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Giovanni Lughezzani
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.,Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
112
|
Greenberg JW, Koller CR, Casado C, Triche BL, Krane LS. A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2022; 14:17562872221096377. [PMID: 35531364 PMCID: PMC9073105 DOI: 10.1177/17562872221096377] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2021] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in American men following skin cancer, with approximately one in eight men being diagnosed during their lifetime. Over the past several decades, the treatment of prostate cancer has evolved rapidly, so too has screening. Since the mid-2010s, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies or 'targeted biopsies' has been a rapidly growing topic of clinical research within the field of urologic oncology. The aim of this publication is to provide a review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) utilization for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and a comparison to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Through single-centered studies and meta-analysis across all identified pertinent published literature, bpMRI is an effective tool for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer. When compared with the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, bpMRI identifies prostate cancer at comparable rates. In addition, when omitting dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) protocol to the MRI, patients incur reduced costs and shorter imaging time while providers can offer more tests to their patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob W. Greenberg
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | | | - Crystal Casado
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Benjamin L. Triche
- Department of Radiology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - L. Spencer Krane
- Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, 2400 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70119, USA
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
113
|
Jager A, van Riel LA, Postema AW, de Reijke TM, van der Sluis TM, Oddens JR. An optimized prostate biopsy strategy in patients with a unilateral lesion on prostate magnetic resonance imaging avoids unnecessary biopsies. Ther Adv Urol 2022; 14:17562872221111410. [PMID: 35924207 PMCID: PMC9340407 DOI: 10.1177/17562872221111410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2021] [Accepted: 06/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx)
besides systematic prostate biopsies has resulted in a discussion on what
the optimal prostate biopsy strategy is. The ideal template has high
sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), while
reducing the detection rate of clinically insignificant prostate cancer
(iPCa). This study evaluates different biopsy strategies in patients with a
unilateral prostate MRI lesion. Methods: Retrospective subgroup analysis of a prospectively managed database
consisting of patients undergoing prostate biopsy in two academic centres.
Patients with a unilateral lesion (PI-RADS ⩾ 3) on MRI were included for
analysis. The primary objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance
for different biopsy approaches compared with bilateral systematic prostate
biopsy (SBx) and TBx. Detection rates for csPCa (ISUP ⩾ 2), adjusted csPCa
(ISUP ⩾ 3) and iPCa (ISUP = 1) were determined for SBx alone, TBx alone,
contralateral SBx combined with TBx and ipsilateral SBx combined with TBx. A
subgroup analysis was performed for biopsy-naive patients. Results: A total of 228 patients were included from October 2015 to September 2021.
Prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate of combined SBx and TBx was 63.5% for
csPCa, 35.5% for adjusted csPCa, and 14% for iPCa. The best performing
alternative biopsy strategy was TBx and ipsilateral SBx, which reached a
sensitivity of 98.6% (95% CI: 95.1–99.6) for csPCa and 98.8% (95% CI:
96.3–99.9) for adjusted csPCa, missing only 1.4% of csPCa, while reducing
iPCa detection by 15.6% compared with SBx and TBx. TBx or SBx alone missed a
significant amount of csPCa, with sensitivities of 90.3% (95% CI: 84.4–94.2)
and 86.8% (95% CI: 80.4–91.4) for csPCa. Subgroup analysis on biopsy-naive
patients showed similar results as the overall group. Conclusion: This study shows that performing TBx with ipsilateral SBx and omitting
contralateral SBx is the optimal biopsy strategy in patients with a
unilateral MRI lesion. With this strategy, a very limited amount of csPCa is
missed and iPCa detection is reduced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Auke Jager
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Luigi A.M.J.G. van Riel
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arnoud. W. Postema
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Theo M. de Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tim M. van der Sluis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorg R. Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
114
|
Immerzeel J, Israël B, Bomers J, Schoots IG, van Basten JP, Kurth KH, de Reijke T, Sedelaar M, Debruyne F, Barentsz J. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 4: Transperineal Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy Using Local Anesthesia. Eur Urol 2022; 81:110-117. [PMID: 34799197 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.10.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Revised: 09/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy (MFGB) is an increasingly popular technique due to increasing rates of biopsy-related infections. However, its widespread implementation has been hampered by the supposed necessity of epidural or general anesthesia. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the technique, feasibility, and results of transperineal MFGB under local anesthesia, in an ambulatory setting without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This single-center study enrolled consecutive biopsy-naïve men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer into a prospective database between November 2015 and November 2020. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores 3-5 underwent transperineal MFGB. SURGICAL PROCEDURE Transperineal MFGB was performed in an ambulatory setting under local anesthesia by a single operator. MEASUREMENTS Procedure-associated adverse events were recorded. Patient discomfort during both the local anesthesia and the biopsy procedure was determined using a visual analogic scale (0-10). Detection rates of grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer and the proportion of men with GG 1 cancer were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 1097 eligible men underwent transperineal MFGB. The complication rate was 0.73% (8/1097); complications comprised five (0.46%) urinary tract infections including one hospitalization and three (0.27%) urinary retentions. In 735 men, the median pain scores were 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-3) for the local anesthesia procedure and 1 (IQR 0-2) for the biopsy. Prostate cancer was detected in 84% (926/1097) of men; 66% (723/1097) had GG ≥2 and 19% (203/1097) GG 1. CONCLUSIONS Transperineal MFGB can safely be performed as an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia in an ambulatory setting. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer is high, and biopsy is well tolerated. Although no antibiotic prophylaxis was used, the rate of infectious complications is practicably negligible. PATIENT SUMMARY This article shows how tissue samples (biopsies) can accurately be obtained from suspicious regions seen on prostate magnetic resonance imaging via needles inserted in the perineum (skin between the scrotum and the anus) in men with suspected prostate cancer. This technique appears to be very well tolerated under local anesthesia and has a lower risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis than the more common biopsy route through the rectum, with antibiotics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jos Immerzeel
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Israël
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Joyce Bomers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jean-Paul van Basten
- Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Prosper Collaborative Prostate Cancer Clinics, Nijmegen-Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Theo de Reijke
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel Sedelaar
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Prosper Collaborative Prostate Cancer Clinics, Nijmegen-Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Frans Debruyne
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Jelle Barentsz
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
115
|
Chandra MM, Greenspan SH, Li X, Yang J, Pryor AD, Shroyer ALW, Fitzgerald JP. Race-insurance disparities in prostate patients' magnetic resonance imaging biopsies and their subsequent cancer care: a New York State cohort study. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL UROLOGY 2021; 9:435-455. [PMID: 34993264 PMCID: PMC8727785] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/13/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
For organ-confined prostate cancer, socioeconomic factors influencing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy utilization and downstream prostate cancer patients' care are unknown. This retrospective, observational cohort study used the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) billing-code driven database to examine the impact of prostate patients' socioeconomic characteristics on prostate cancer care defined as initial biopsy, 2-month post-biopsy cancer diagnoses, and within 1-year cancer-related intervention, controlling for other risk factors. From 2011-2017, the population studied (n = 18,253) included all New York State-based, male, residents aged 18 to 75 without a prior prostatectomy receiving a first-time biopsy; 760 such patient records in 2016 were removed due to data quality concerns. Major exposures included patient age, race, ethnicity and insurance. The major outcome included receipt of MRI biopsy versus standard biopsy and for these sub-populations, subsequent 2-month post-biopsy metastatic versus non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis and within 1-year prostate cancer treatment (prostatectomy with or without radiation versus prostatectomy-only) were compared using dichotomous (primary) and time-to-event (secondary) endpoints. Of 17,493 patients with a first-time prostate biopsy, 3.89% had MRI guided biopsies; of the 17,128 patients with no pre-biopsy cancer diagnosis, the subsequent prostate cancer diagnosis rate was 42.59%. For 6,754 non-metastatic prostate cancer patients with 1-year follow-up, 1,674 (24.79%) received surgery (with or without radiation) and 495 (7.33%) received radiation-only. Holding other factors constant, multivariable regression models identified that race-insurance was a primary predictor of MRI-guided biopsy use. Compared to commercially insured White patients, Black patients across all insurance categories received MRI-guided biopsies less frequently; Commercially insured and self-pay Black patients also had increased chance of prostate cancer diagnosis. Across all insurers, Black patients had lower likelihood of prostatectomies. In contrast, Black and White patients with government insurance were more likely to have within 1-year radiation-only treatments versus commercially insured White patients. Thus, across the prostate cancer care continuum, race-insurance affected prostate cancer-related service utilization. Future research should evaluate the generalizability of these New York State findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mansi M Chandra
- Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY 11794-8093, USA
| | - Seth H Greenspan
- Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY 11794-8093, USA
| | - Xiaoning Li
- Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY 11794-8093, USA
| | - Jie Yang
- Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY 11794-8093, USA
| | - Aurora D Pryor
- Department of Surgery, Health, Stony Brook MedicineStony Brook, NY 11794-8191, USA
| | - Annie Laurie Winkley Shroyer
- Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook UniversityStony Brook, NY 11794-8093, USA
- Stony Brook University School of Medicine’s Department of Urology and SurgeryStony Brook, NY 11794, USA
| | - John P Fitzgerald
- Stony Brook University School of Medicine’s Department of Urology and SurgeryStony Brook, NY 11794, USA
| |
Collapse
|
116
|
The utility of prostate MRI within active surveillance: description of the evidence. World J Urol 2021; 40:71-77. [PMID: 34860274 PMCID: PMC8813688 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03853-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 02/02/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We present an overview of the literature regarding the use of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Methods Both MEDLINE® and Cochrane Library were queried up to May 2020 for studies of men on active surveillance with MRI and later confirmatory biopsy. The terms studied were ‘prostate cancer’ as the anchor followed by two of the following: active surveillance, surveillance, active monitoring, MRI, NMR, magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, and multiparametric MRI. Studies were excluded if pathologic reclassification (GG1 → ≥ GG2) and PI-RADS or equivalent was not reported. Results Within active surveillance, baseline MRI is effective for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer and thus associated with fewer reclassification events. A positive initial MRI (≥ PI-RADS 3) with GG1 identified at biopsy has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35–40% for reclassification by 3 years. MRI possessed a stronger negative predictive value, with a negative MRI (≤ PI-RADS 2) yielding a negative predictive value of up to 85% at 3 years. Surveillance MRI, obtained after initial biopsy, yielded a PPV of 11–65% and NPV of 85–95% for reclassification. Conclusion MRI is useful for initial risk stratification of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, especially if MRI is negative when imaging is obtained during surveillance. While useful, MRI cannot replace biopsy and further research is necessary to fully integrate MRI into active surveillance.
Collapse
|
117
|
Barra D, Nicoletti G, Defeudis A, Mazzetti S, Panic J, Gatti M, Faletti R, Russo F, Regge D, Giannini V. Deep learning model for automatic prostate segmentation on bicentric T2w images with and without endorectal coil. ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY. IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY. ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2021; 2021:3370-3373. [PMID: 34891962 DOI: 10.1109/embc46164.2021.9630792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Automatic segmentation of the prostate on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is one of the topics on which research has focused in recent years as it is a fundamental first step in the building process of a Computer aided diagnosis (CAD) system for cancer detection. Unfortunately, MRI acquired in different centers with different scanners leads to images with different characteristics. In this work, we propose an automatic algorithm for prostate segmentation, based on a U-Net applying transfer learning method in a bi-center setting. First, T2w images with and without endorectal coil from 80 patients acquired at Center A were used as training set and internal validation set. Then, T2w images without endorectal coil from 20 patients acquired at Center B were used as external validation. The reference standard for this study was manual segmentation of the prostate gland performed by an expert operator. The results showed a Dice similarity coefficient >85% in both internal and external validation datasets.Clinical Relevance- This segmentation algorithm could be integrated into a CAD system to optimize computational effort in prostate cancer detection.
Collapse
|
118
|
Schick F, Pieper CC, Kupczyk P, Almansour H, Keller G, Springer F, Mürtz P, Endler C, Sprinkart AM, Kaufmann S, Herrmann J, Attenberger UI. 1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1. Invest Radiol 2021; 56:680-691. [PMID: 34324464 DOI: 10.1097/rli.0000000000000812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems with a field strength of 3 T have been offered by all leading manufacturers for approximately 2 decades and are increasingly used in clinical diagnostics despite higher costs. Technologically, MRI systems operating at 3 T have reached a high standard in recent years, as well as the 1.5-T devices that have been in use for a longer time. For modern MRI systems with 3 T, more complexity is required, especially for the magnet and the radiofrequency (RF) system (with multichannel transmission). Many clinical applications benefit greatly from the higher field strength due to the higher signal yield (eg, imaging of the brain or extremities), but there are also applications where the disadvantages of 3 T might outweigh the advantages (eg, lung imaging or examinations in the presence of implants). This review describes some technical features of modern 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body MRI systems, and reports on the experience of using both types of devices in different clinical settings, with all sections written by specialist radiologists in the respective fields.This first part of the review includes an overview of the general physicotechnical aspects of both field strengths and elaborates the special conditions of diffusion imaging. Many relevant aspects in the application areas of musculoskeletal imaging, abdominal imaging, and prostate diagnostics are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fritz Schick
- From the Section of Experimental Radiology, Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen
| | | | - Patrick Kupczyk
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Haidara Almansour
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Gabriel Keller
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Fabian Springer
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Petra Mürtz
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Christoph Endler
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Alois M Sprinkart
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| | - Sascha Kaufmann
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Judith Herrmann
- Department of Radiology, Diagnostic, and Interventional Radiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Ulrike I Attenberger
- Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn
| |
Collapse
|
119
|
Pensa J, Brisbane W, Priester A, Sisk A, Marks L, Geoghegan R. A System for Co-Registration of High-Resolution Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Whole-Mount Pathology for Prostate Cancer. ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY. IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY. ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2021; 2021:3890-3893. [PMID: 34892082 DOI: 10.1109/embc46164.2021.9630404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
In order to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) for detection of prostate cancer, it must be validated against whole-mount pathology. An ex-vivo HRUS scanning system was developed and tested in phantom and human tissue experiments to allow for in-plane computational co-registration of HRUS with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-mount pathology. The system allowed for co-registration with an error of 1.9mm±1.4mm, while also demonstrating an ability to allow for lesion identification.Clinical Relevance- Using this system, a workflow can be established to co-register HRUS with MRI and pathology to allow for the diagnostic accuracy of HRUS to be determined with direct comparison to MRI.
Collapse
|
120
|
Etzioni R, Haffner MC, Gulati R. Divining Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy. Eur Urol 2021; 80:573-574. [PMID: 34479754 PMCID: PMC11392599 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2021] [Accepted: 08/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - Michael C Haffner
- Divisions of Human Biology and Clinical Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
121
|
Purysko AS, Childes BJ, Ward RD, Bittencourt LK, Klein EA. Pitfalls in Prostate MRI Interpretation: A Pictorial Review. Semin Roentgenol 2021; 56:391-405. [PMID: 34688342 DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2021.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Accepted: 08/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrei S Purysko
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH..
| | - Benjamin J Childes
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Ryan D Ward
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Eric A Klein
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
122
|
Marsden T, Lomas DJ, McCartan N, Hadley J, Tuck S, Brown L, Haire A, Moss CL, Green S, Van Hemelrijck M, Coolen T, Santaolalla A, Isaac E, Brembilla G, Kopcke D, Giganti F, Sidhu H, Punwani S, Emberton M, Moore CM. ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study: protocol for a single-centre feasibility study inviting men for prostate cancer screening using MRI. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e048144. [PMID: 34593491 PMCID: PMC8487192 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Teresa Marsden
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Derek J Lomas
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Neil McCartan
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joanna Hadley
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Steve Tuck
- ReIMAGINE Consortium Patient Representative, University College London, London, UK
| | - Louise Brown
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anna Haire
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Saran Green
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Ton Coolen
- London Institute for Mathematical Sciences, London, UK
| | - Aida Santaolalla
- Cancer Epidemiology Group, Division of Cancer Studies, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth Isaac
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Douglas Kopcke
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
123
|
Liu Y, Zheng H, Liang Z, Miao Q, Brisbane WG, Marks LS, Raman SS, Reiter RE, Yang G, Sung K. Textured-Based Deep Learning in Prostate Cancer Classification with 3T Multiparametric MRI: Comparison with PI-RADS-Based Classification. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:1785. [PMID: 34679484 PMCID: PMC8535024 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11101785] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2021] [Revised: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The current standardized scheme for interpreting MRI requires a high level of expertise and exhibits a significant degree of inter-reader and intra-reader variability. An automated prostate cancer (PCa) classification can improve the ability of MRI to assess the spectrum of PCa. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of a texture-based deep learning model (Textured-DL) for differentiating between clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and non-csPCa and to compare the Textured-DL with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)-based classification (PI-RADS-CLA), where a threshold of PI-RADS ≥ 4, representing highly suspicious lesions for csPCa, was applied. The study cohort included 402 patients (60% (n = 239) of patients for training, 10% (n = 42) for validation, and 30% (n = 121) for testing) with 3T multiparametric MRI matched with whole-mount histopathology after radical prostatectomy. For a given suspicious prostate lesion, the volumetric patches of T2-Weighted MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient images were cropped and used as the input to Textured-DL, consisting of a 3D gray-level co-occurrence matrix extractor and a CNN. PI-RADS-CLA by an expert reader served as a baseline to compare classification performance with Textured-DL in differentiating csPCa from non-csPCa. Sensitivity and specificity comparisons were performed using Mcnemar's test. Bootstrapping with 1000 samples was performed to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) for AUC. CIs of sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the Wald method. The Textured-DL model achieved an AUC of 0.85 (CI [0.79, 0.91]), which was significantly higher than the PI-RADS-CLA (AUC of 0.73 (CI [0.65, 0.80]); p < 0.05) for PCa classification, and the specificity was significantly different between Textured-DL and PI-RADS-CLA (0.70 (CI [0.59, 0.82]) vs. 0.47 (CI [0.35, 0.59]); p < 0.05). In sub-analyses, Textured-DL demonstrated significantly higher specificities in the peripheral zone (PZ) and solitary tumor lesions compared to the PI-RADS-CLA (0.78 (CI [0.66, 0.90]) vs. 0.42 (CI [0.28, 0.57]); 0.75 (CI [0.54, 0.96]) vs. 0.38 [0.14, 0.61]; all p values < 0.05). Moreover, Textured-DL demonstrated a high negative predictive value of 92% while maintaining a high positive predictive value of 58% among the lesions with a PI-RADS score of 3. In conclusion, the Textured-DL model was superior to the PI-RADS-CLA in the classification of PCa. In addition, Textured-DL demonstrated superior performance in the specificities for the peripheral zone and solitary tumors compared with PI-RADS-based risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yongkai Liu
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (H.Z.); (Q.M.); (S.S.R.); (K.S.)
- Physics and Biology in Medicine IDP, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| | - Haoxin Zheng
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (H.Z.); (Q.M.); (S.S.R.); (K.S.)
| | - Zhengrong Liang
- Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA;
| | - Qi Miao
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (H.Z.); (Q.M.); (S.S.R.); (K.S.)
| | - Wayne G. Brisbane
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (W.G.B.); (L.S.M.); (R.E.R.)
| | - Leonard S. Marks
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (W.G.B.); (L.S.M.); (R.E.R.)
| | - Steven S. Raman
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (H.Z.); (Q.M.); (S.S.R.); (K.S.)
| | - Robert E. Reiter
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (W.G.B.); (L.S.M.); (R.E.R.)
| | - Guang Yang
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK;
| | - Kyunghyun Sung
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; (H.Z.); (Q.M.); (S.S.R.); (K.S.)
- Physics and Biology in Medicine IDP, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| |
Collapse
|
124
|
In-Bore Versus Fusion MRI-Targeted Biopsy of PI-RADS Category 4 and 5 Lesions: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis Using Propensity Score Weighting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 217:1123-1130. [PMID: 33646819 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.25207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Few published studies have compared in-bore and fusion MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, and the available studies have had conflicting results. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the target-specific cancer detection rate of in-bore prostate biopsy with that of fusion MRI-targeted biopsy. METHODS. The records of men who underwent in-bore or fusion MRI-targeted biopsy of PI-RADS category 4 or 5 lesions between August 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively identified. PI-RADS version 2.1 assessment category, size, and location of each target were established by retrospective review by a single experienced radiologist. Patient history and target biopsy results were obtained by electronic medical record review. Only the first MRI-targeted biopsy of the dominant lesion was included for patients with repeated biopsies or multiple targets. In-bore and fusion biopsy were compared by propensity score weights and multivariable regression to adjust for imbalances in patient and target characteristics between biopsy techniques. The primary endpoint was target-specific prostate cancer detection rate. Secondary endpoints were detection rate after application of propensity score weighting for cancers in International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 2 (GG2) or higher and detection rate with the use of off-target systematic sampling results. RESULTS. The study sample included 286 men (in-bore biopsy, 191; fusion biopsy, 95). Compared with fusion biopsy, in-bore biopsy was associated with significantly greater likelihood of detection of any cancer (odds ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.04-4.98]; p = .04) and nonsignificantly greater likelihood of detection of ISUP GG2 or higher cancer (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 0.88-2.79]; p = .12) in a target. When off-target sampling was included, in-bore biopsy and combined fusion and systematic biopsy were not different for detection of any cancer (odds ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.54-2.45]; p = .71) or ISUP GG2 and higher cancer (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.66-2.01]; p = .62). CONCLUSION. In this retrospective study in which propensity score weighting was used, in-bore MRI-targeted prostate biopsy had a higher target-specific cancer detection rate than did fusion biopsy. CLINICAL IMPACT. Pending a larger prospective randomized multicenter comparison between in-bore and fusion biopsy, in-bore may be the preferred approach should performing only biopsy of a suspicious target, without concurrent systematic biopsy, be considered clinically appropriate.
Collapse
|
125
|
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor M, Gabe R, Padhani AR, Rockall A, Sokhi H, Tam H, Winkler M, Ahmed HU. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 24:596-611. [PMID: 33219368 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00298-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2020] [Revised: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 10/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the use of three multiple imaging sequences, typically T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images, has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant cancer. Current guidance now recommends its use prior to biopsy. However, the impact of DCE is currently under debate regarding test accuracy. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), using only T2 and DWI has been proposed as a viable alternative. We conducted a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to further examine the diagnostic performance of bpMRI in the diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS A systematic review of the literature from 01/01/2017 to 06/07/2019 was performed by two independent reviewers using predefined search criteria. The index test was biparametric MRI and the reference standard whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Quality of included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analysis included pooled diagnostic performance (sensitivity; specificity; AUC), meta-regression of possible covariates and head-to-head comparisons of bpMRI and mpMRI where both were performed in the same study. RESULTS Forty-four articles were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for any cancer detection was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) for bpMRI. The summary ROC curve yielded a high AUC value (AUC = 0.86). The pooled sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84) and the AUC value was 0.87. Meta-regression analysis revealed no difference in the pooled diagnostic estimates between bpMRI and mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis on contemporary studies shows that bpMRI offers comparable test accuracies to mpMRI in detecting prostate cancer. These data are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach but heterogeneity does not allow definitive recommendations to be made. There is a need for prospective multicentre studies of bpMRI in biopsy naïve men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Bass
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. .,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| | - A Pantovic
- Centre of Research Excellence in Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Medical Research, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - M Connor
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - R Gabe
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - A R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, UK
| | - A Rockall
- Division of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer,Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - H Sokhi
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, UK.,Department of Radiology, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - H Tam
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - M Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - H U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
126
|
Czyzewska D, Sushentsev N, Latoch E, Slough RA, Barrett T. T2-PROPELLER Compared to T2-FRFSE for Image Quality and Lesion Detection at Prostate MRI. Can Assoc Radiol J 2021; 73:355-361. [PMID: 34423672 DOI: 10.1177/08465371211030206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The primary objective was to compare T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences for image quality. The secondary objective was to compare the ability to detect prostate lesions at MRI in the presence and absence of motion artefact using the 2 sequences. METHODS 99 patients underwent 3 T MRI examination of the prostate, including T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences. All patients underwent prostate biopsy. Two independent readers rated overall image quality, presence of motion artefact, and blurring for both sequences using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores were compared for the whole group and for subgroups with and without significant motion artefact. Outcome for lesion detection at an MRI threshold of PI-RADS score ≥3 was compared between T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER. RESULTS The overall image quality was not significantly different between T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences (3.74 vs. 3.93, p = 0.275). T2-PROPELLER recorded a lesser degree of motion artefact (score 4.53 vs. 3.78, p <0.0001), but demonstrated greater image blurring (score 3.29 vs. 3.73, p <0.001). However, in a subgroup of patients with significant motion artefact on T2-FRFSE, the T2-PROPELLER sequence demonstrated significantly higher image quality (3.46 vs. 2.49, p <0.001). T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER showed comparable positive predictive values for lesion detection at 93.2% and 97.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS T2-PROPELLER provides higher quality imaging in the presence of motion artefact, but T2-FRFSE is preferred in the absence of motion. T2-PROPELLER is therefore recommended as a secondary T2 sequence when imaging requires repeat acquisition due to motion artefact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dorota Czyzewska
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Nikita Sushentsev
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Eryk Latoch
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Medical University of Bialystok, Poland
| | - Rhys A Slough
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,CamPARI Prostate Cancer Group, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
127
|
Quinn TP, Sanda MG, Howard DH, Patil D, Filson CP. Disparities in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for traditionally underserved patients with prostate cancer. Cancer 2021; 127:2974-2979. [PMID: 34139027 PMCID: PMC8319036 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2020] [Revised: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate improves detection of significant tumors, while decreasing detection of less-aggressive tumors. Therefore, its use has been increasing over time. In this study, the use of prebiopsy MRI among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer was examined. It was hypothesized that patients of color and those in isolated areas would be less likely to undergo this approach for cancer detection. METHODS Using cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program linked to billing claims for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer were identified from 2010 through 2015 with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <30 ng/mL. Outcome was prebiopsy MRI of the prostate performed within 6 months before diagnosis (ie, Current Procedural Terminology 72197). Exposures were patient race/ethnicity and rural/urban status. Multivariable regression estimated the odds of prebiopsy prostate MRI. Post hoc analyses examined associations with the registry-level proportion of non-Hispanic Black patients and MRI use, as well as disparities in MRI use in registries with data on more frequent use of prostate MRI. RESULTS There were 50,719 men identified with prostate cancer (mean age, 72.1 years). Overall, 964 men (1.9% of cohort) had a prebiopsy MRI. Eighty percent of patients with prebiopsy MRI lived in California, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Non-Hispanic Black men (0.6% vs 2.1% non-Hispanic White; odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.40) and men in less urban areas (1.1% vs 2.2% large metro; OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97) were less likely to have prebiopsy MRI of the prostate. CONCLUSIONS Non-Hispanic Black patients with prostate cancer and those in less urban areas were less likely to have prebiopsy MRI of the prostate during its initial adoption as a tool for improving prostate cancer detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy P Quinn
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Martin G Sanda
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - David H Howard
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Dattatraya Patil
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Christopher P Filson
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
128
|
Israël B, Immerzeel J, van der Leest M, Hannink G, Zámecnik P, Bomers J, Schoots IG, van Basten JP, Debruyne F, van Oort I, Sedelaar M, Barentsz J. Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2021; 129:480-490. [PMID: 34358388 PMCID: PMC9291303 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15562] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Objective To assess the outcomes of pre‐biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI‐directed biopsy (TR‐MRDB) and transperineal (TP)‐MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. Patients and Methods We retrospectively assessed a two‐centre cohort of consecutive biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI‐RADS v2) compliant pre‐biopsy MRI in a single, high‐volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR‐MRDB in Centre 1 and TP‐MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy‐avoidance due to non‐suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy‐related complications between TR‐ and TP‐MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI‐RADS category. Results Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR‐ and TP‐MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of −5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] −13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI −2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI −1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR‐MRDB (0.50%) and TP‐MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI −0.87% to 1.1%). Conclusion This high‐volume, two‐centre study shows pre‐biopsy MRI as a decision tool is implementable in daily clinical practice. Compared to recent trials, a substantially higher biopsy avoidance rate was achieved without compromising GG ≥2/GG ≥3 detection and coinciding with lower over detection rates of GG 1 cancer. Prostate cancer detection and complication rates were comparable for TR‐ and TP‐MRDB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas Israël
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jos Immerzeel
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - Marloes van der Leest
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Gerjon Hannink
- Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Patrik Zámecnik
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Joyce Bomers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Frans Debruyne
- Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - Inge van Oort
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Michiel Sedelaar
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle Barentsz
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
129
|
Tohi Y, Miyauchi Y, Yamasaki M, Fujiwara K, Harada S, Matsuda I, Ito A, Matsuoka Y, Kato T, Taoka R, Tsunemori H, Ueda N, Sugimoto M. Incidental Bladder Cancer Found on Cystoscopy during Prostate Biopsy: Prevalence, Pathological Findings, and Oncological Outcome. Urol Int 2021; 106:791-797. [PMID: 34352796 DOI: 10.1159/000517895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We examined the prevalence, pathological findings, and oncological outcomes of incidental bladder cancer found on cystoscopy among patients eligible for prostate biopsy (PB). METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 803 patients who underwent cystoscopy prior to PB between January 2010 and September 2020. In cases of bladder tumor-like findings on cystoscopy, biopsy or transurethral resection of the bladder tumor was performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were the prevalence of incidental bladder cancer and pathological and oncological outcomes of incidental bladder cancer, respectively. RESULTS Incidental findings were observed in 31/803 patients (3.9%). Bladder tumor-like findings were found in 24/803 patients (3%), while 9/803 patients (1.1%) were pathologically diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma. The stage and grade of incidental bladder cancer were pTa in 8/9 patients and pT1 in 1/9 and low grade in 8/9 and high in 1/9, respectively. The median tumor size of the papillary pedunculated type was 0.5 cm. At 26-month median follow-up, no recurrence was observed. CONCLUSION Cystoscopy during PB may yield incidental bladder cancer findings, although the prevalence is very low. Incidental bladder cancer was of low stage and grade, which seemed unrelated to survival. Moreover, performing routine cystoscopy in conjunction with PB is not recommended as it may lead to overdiagnosis of low-risk bladder cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yoichiro Tohi
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Yasuyuki Miyauchi
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Mari Yamasaki
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Kengo Fujiwara
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Satoshi Harada
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Iori Matsuda
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Ayako Ito
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Yuki Matsuoka
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Takuma Kato
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Rikiya Taoka
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Tsunemori
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Nobufumi Ueda
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Mikio Sugimoto
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
130
|
Costa DN, Jia L, Subramanian N, Xi Y, Rofsky NM, Recchimuzzi DZ, de Leon AD, Arraj P, Pedrosa I. Prospective PI-RADS v2.1 Atypical Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Nodules With Marked Restricted Diffusion: Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 217:395-403. [PMID: 32876473 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.24370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND. On the basis of expert consensus, PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) introduced the transition zone (TZ) atypical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) nodule, defined as a TZ lesion with an incomplete or absent capsule (T2 score, 2). PI-RADS v2.1 also included a revised scoring pathway whereby such nodules, if exhibiting marked restricted diffusion (DWI score, 4-5), are upgraded from overall PI-RADS category 2 to category 3 (2 + 1 TZ lesions). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in prospectively reported 2 + 1 TZ lesions, as defined by PI-RADS v2.1, and conventional 3 + 0 TZ lesions with targeted biopsy as the reference standard. METHODS. This retrospective study included men with no known PCa or with treatment-naïve grade group (GG) 1 PCa who underwent 3-T multiparametric MRI of the prostate with prospective reporting by means of PI-RADS v2.1. Patients with at least one PI-RADS category 3 TZ lesion who underwent targeted biopsy formed the final sample. Biopsy results were summarized descriptively for 2 + 1 and 3 + 0 lesions. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare csPCa detection rates between groups. Associations between csPCa in 2 + 1 lesions and patient age, PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density, biopsy history, lesion size, and lesion ADC were tested with Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS. Among 1238 eligible patients who underwent MRI reported with PI-RADS v2.1, 2 + 1 lesions were reported in 6% (n = 69) and 3 + 0 TZ lesions in 7% (n = 87) of patients. No PCa, GG1 PCa, or csPCa was found in 84% (n = 41), 10% (n = 5), and 6% (n = 3) of 49 patients with 2 + 1 lesions who underwent targeted biopsy. Nor were they found in 74% (n = 45), 15% (n = 9), and 11% (n = 7) of 61 patients with 3 + 0 lesions who underwent targeted biopsy. The csPCa detection rate was not significantly different between 2 + 1 and 3 + 0 lesions (p = .31). All cases of csPCa were GG2, except for one 3 + 0 lesion with a GG3 tumor. No clinical or imaging variable was associated with csPCa in 2 + 1 lesions. CONCLUSION. The rate of csPCa in atypical BPH nodules with marked restricted diffusion was low (6%) and not significantly different from that of conventional 3 + 0 TZ lesions (11%). CLINICAL IMPACT. The results provide prospective clinical data about the revised TZ scoring criterion and pathway in PI-RADS v2.1 for atypical BPH nodules with marked restricted diffusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel N Costa
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Liwei Jia
- Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Naveen Subramanian
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Yin Xi
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Neil M Rofsky
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Debora Z Recchimuzzi
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Alberto Diaz de Leon
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Patrick Arraj
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| | - Ivan Pedrosa
- Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clements Imaging Bldg (NE2.210), 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390
| |
Collapse
|
131
|
MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy Techniques: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 217:1263-1281. [PMID: 34259038 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.21.26154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men worldwide. Systematic transrectal prostate biopsy is commonly used to obtain tissue to establish the diagnosis. However, in recent years, MRI-targeted biopsy (based on an MRI examination performed prior to consideration of biopsy) has been shown to detect more clinically significant cancer and less clinically insignificant cancer compared to systematic biopsy. This approach of performing MRI prior to biopsy has become, or is becoming, a standard of practice in centers throughout the world. This growing use of an MRI-directed pathway is leading to performance of a larger volume of MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. The three common MRI-targeted biopsy techniques are cognitive biopsy, MRI-ultrasound software fusion biopsy, and MRI in-bore guided biopsy. These techniques for using MRI information at the time of biopsy can be performed via a transrectal or transperineal approach. This narrative review presents the three MRI-targeted biopsy techniques along with their advantages and shortcomings. Comparisons among the techniques are summarized based on the available evidence. Studies to date have provided heterogeneous results, and the preferred technique remains debated.
Collapse
|
132
|
Hötker A, Donati OF. [PI-RADS 2.1 and structured reporting of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate]. Radiologe 2021; 61:802-809. [PMID: 34213622 PMCID: PMC8410719 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-021-00868-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Klinisches/methodisches Problem Die Identifikation klinisch signifikanter Prostatakarzinome bei gleichzeitigem Vermeiden einer Überdiagnostik niedrigmaligner Tumoren stellt eine Herausforderung in der klinischen Routine dar. Radiologische Standardverfahren Die gemäß PI-RADS-Richtlinien (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Guidelines) akquirierte und interpretierte multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) der Prostata ist als klinischer Standard bei Urologen und Radiologen akzeptiert. Methodische Innovationen Die PI-RADS-Richtlinien sind neu auf Version 2.1 aktualisiert worden und beinhalten neben präzisierten technischen Anforderungen einzelne Änderungen in der Läsionsbewertung. Leistungsfähigkeit Die PI-RADS-Richtlinien haben entscheidende Bedeutung in der Standardisierung der multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata erlangt und bieten Vorlagen zur strukturierten Befundung, was die Kommunikation mit dem Zuweiser erleichtert. Bewertung Die nun auf Version 2.1 aktualisierten Richtlinien stellen eine Verfeinerung der verbreiteten Version 2.0 dar. Dabei wurden viele Aspekte der Befundung präzisiert, einige vorbekannte Limitationen bleiben jedoch bestehen und erfordern die weitere Verbesserung der Richtlinien in kommenden Versionen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Hötker
- Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz
| | - Olivio F Donati
- Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz.
| |
Collapse
|
133
|
Syer T, Mehta P, Antonelli M, Mallett S, Atkinson D, Ourselin S, Punwani S. Artificial Intelligence Compared to Radiologists for the Initial Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:3318. [PMID: 34282762 PMCID: PMC8268820 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13133318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Revised: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), using artificial intelligence (AI), may reduce missed cancers and unnecessary biopsies, increase inter-observer agreement between radiologists, and alleviate pressures caused by rising case incidence and a shortage of specialist radiologists to read prostate mpMRI. However, well-designed evaluation studies are required to prove efficacy above current clinical practice. A systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and arXiv electronic databases was conducted for studies that compared CAD for prostate cancer detection or classification on MRI against radiologist interpretation and a histopathological reference standard, in treatment-naïve men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Twenty-seven studies were included in the final analysis. Due to substantial heterogeneities in the included studies, a narrative synthesis is presented. Several studies reported superior diagnostic accuracy for CAD over radiologist interpretation on small, internal patient datasets, though this was not observed in the few studies that performed evaluation using external patient data. Our review found insufficient evidence to suggest the clinical deployment of artificial intelligence algorithms at present. Further work is needed to develop and enforce methodological standards, promote access to large diverse datasets, and conduct prospective evaluations before clinical adoption can be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Syer
- Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Bloomsbury Campus, University College London, London WC1E 6DH, UK; (T.S.); (S.M.); (D.A.)
| | - Pritesh Mehta
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Bloomsbury Campus, University College London, London WC1E 6DH, UK;
| | - Michela Antonelli
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, St Thomas’ Campus, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (M.A.); (S.O.)
| | - Sue Mallett
- Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Bloomsbury Campus, University College London, London WC1E 6DH, UK; (T.S.); (S.M.); (D.A.)
| | - David Atkinson
- Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Bloomsbury Campus, University College London, London WC1E 6DH, UK; (T.S.); (S.M.); (D.A.)
| | - Sébastien Ourselin
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, St Thomas’ Campus, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (M.A.); (S.O.)
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, Bloomsbury Campus, University College London, London WC1E 6DH, UK; (T.S.); (S.M.); (D.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
134
|
A Systematic Review for Health Disparities and Inequities in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Acad Radiol 2021; 28:953-962. [PMID: 34020873 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2021.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) is a novel procedure recommended by the American Urological Association for Prostate Cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In radiology, differences in utilization of expensive screening techniques are described but never reviewed for mpMRI. Thus, our article aims at summarizing disparities relating to the expensive yet revolutionary mpMRI in United States men with PCa while highlighting needed research areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eligible articles were gathered via PubMed query, referred publications known to the authors or from the reference lists of the identified publications. We excluded studies that didn't specifically evaluate mpMRI technique, weren't conducted in the United States, or didn't directly assess the relationship between disparities and mpMRI. No date restrictions were applied, resulting articles were published through 2020. RESULTS Out of 80 publications, 17 were selected. Two unique themes were identified: 1) disparities in mpMRI utilization, and 2) performance. While demographic factors such as race, age and socioeconomic status played a significant role in utilization, mpMRI demonstrated equal and sometimes superior performance in AAs. CONCLUSION Our findings illustrate the importance of disparity awareness in PCa mpMRI and highlight the need to examine additional mpMRI disparities across other races and social determinants. A new area of inequity in PCa was theoretically illustrated, as lower utilization of mpMRI was detected in a group that could potentially benefit from it the most. Major limitation was the selected search terms. Our review is unique as disparities related to mpMRI were found to be multilayered, affecting utilization and performance. Continued research is needed to discover additional areas in efforts to reduce disparity gaps related to mpMRI and PCa.
Collapse
|
135
|
Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Systematic TRUS-Biopsies in a Population-Based Setting Over a 20 Year Period. Urology 2021; 155:20-25. [PMID: 34171348 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Revised: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the performance of systematic TRUS-biopsies in a population-based setting to detect clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in combination with age, clinical tumor category (cT), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in men referred for the first biopsy. METHODS We identified all men referred for PCa work-up because of elevated PSA who underwent initial TRUS-biopsies in the nationwide Danish Prostate Cancer Registry (DaPCaR) between January 1st, 1995 and December 31st, 2016, in Denmark. Risk of histologic findings in initial TRUS-biopsies categorized as non-malignant, insignificant PCa, or significant PCa (csPCa). We defined csPCa as any biopsy containing Gleason score 3 + 4 or above as in the PRECISION trial. We assessed risk of csPCa with absolute risk, logistic regression model, and predicted risks. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS After exclusions, our cohort included 39,886 men. The diagnostic hit rate for csPCa was 40.8 %. Men with PSA > 20 ng/mL and ≥cT2 harbor a risk >75% for finding csPCa in the first TRUS biopsy-set. Men with cT1 tumors and PSA < 20 ng/mL have a risk of non-malignant histology of at least 58%. Limitations include the high number of exclusions based on missing information. CONCLUSION The diagnostic accuracy of systematic TRUS-biopsies is high for men with palpable tumors and high PSA. Our data point to the fact that not all men need pre-biopsy MRI to find csPCa.
Collapse
|
136
|
Bajeot AS, Covin B, Meyrignac O, Pericart S, Aziza R, Portalez D, Graff-Cailleaud P, Ploussard G, Roumiguié M, Malavaud B. Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Prostate Biopsy-The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Transperineal Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 5:296-303. [PMID: 34154979 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2021] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discordant findings between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal image-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUS-P) may result in inadequate risk stratification of localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I-negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II-negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III-<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS TPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003). As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Nonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I-II discordances is recommended. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne-Sophie Bajeot
- Department of Urology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France; Department of Urology, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Bertrand Covin
- Department of Urology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France
| | - Oliver Meyrignac
- Department of Radiology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France
| | - Sarah Pericart
- Department of Pathology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France
| | - Richard Aziza
- Department of Radiology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France
| | - Daniel Portalez
- Department of Radiology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France
| | | | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France; Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Mathieu Roumiguié
- Department of Urology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France; Department of Urology, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Bernard Malavaud
- Department of Urology, Toulouse Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France.
| |
Collapse
|
137
|
Patel N, Coakley FV, Foster BR. Performance of transgluteal CT-guided biopsy of prostate lesions in men without rectal access: A retrospective study. Clin Imaging 2021; 79:225-229. [PMID: 34119914 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2020] [Revised: 05/03/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To retrospectively study the performance of CT-guided biopsy of target prostate lesions at a single institution. METHODS Between May 2016 and February 2021, we retrospectively identified all men without rectal access who underwent transgluteal CT-guided biopsy of PIRADS 4 or 5 targets detected on multiparametric MRI (n = 9). Clinical, radiological, and pathological details were collected by review of the electronic medical record, and included age, pre-biopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA) value, prior biopsy history, biopsy targeting technique and procedural details, complications, and final histologic diagnosis. Two targeting techniques were used: Localizing with anatomic landmarks or localizing with contrast enhancement. RESULTS Mean patient age was 69 years (range, 49-74) and mean PSA was 14.6 ng/mL (range 7-23). Four lesions were targeted using anatomic landmarks and 5 were targeted using contrast enhancement. All biopsies were technically successful and all resulted as prostate cancer. Three biopsies showed Gleason 6 cancer and 6 biopsies showed clinically significant prostate cancers with Gleason 7 or above. There were no major complications. 7 patients went on to definitive treatment with surgery or radiation. CONCLUSION Transgluteal CT-guided biopsy of MRI detected prostate lesions diagnoses clinically significant prostate cancer without complication and therefore should be considered for patients without a rectum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neel Patel
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code: L340, Portland, OR 97239, United States of America.
| | - Fergus V Coakley
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code: L340, Portland, OR 97239, United States of America
| | - Bryan R Foster
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code: L340, Portland, OR 97239, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
138
|
Giannini V, Mazzetti S, Cappello G, Doronzio VM, Vassallo L, Russo F, Giacobbe A, Muto G, Regge D. Computer-Aided Diagnosis Improves the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric-MRI: A Multi-Observer Performance Study Involving Inexperienced Readers. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:973. [PMID: 34071215 PMCID: PMC8227686 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11060973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Recently, Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) systems have been proposed to help radiologists in detecting and characterizing Prostate Cancer (PCa). However, few studies evaluated the performances of these systems in a clinical setting, especially when used by non-experienced readers. The main aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic performance of non-experienced readers when reporting assisted by the likelihood map generated by a CAD system, and to compare the results with the unassisted interpretation. Three resident radiologists were asked to review multiparametric-MRI of patients with and without PCa, both unassisted and assisted by a CAD system. In both reading sessions, residents recorded all positive cases, and sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were computed and compared. The dataset comprised 90 patients (45 with at least one clinically significant biopsy-confirmed PCa). Sensitivity significantly increased in the CAD assisted mode for patients with at least one clinically significant lesion (GS > 6) (68.7% vs. 78.1%, p = 0.018). Overall specificity was not statistically different between unassisted and assisted sessions (94.8% vs. 89.6, p = 0.072). The use of the CAD system significantly increases the per-patient sensitivity of inexperienced readers in the detection of clinically significant PCa, without negatively affecting specificity, while significantly reducing overall reporting time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Giannini
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | - Simone Mazzetti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | - Giovanni Cappello
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | - Valeria Maria Doronzio
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | - Lorenzo Vassallo
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | - Filippo Russo
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| | | | - Giovanni Muto
- Department of Urology, Humanitas University, 10153 Turin, Italy;
| | - Daniele Regge
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
- Department of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy; (G.C.); (V.M.D.); (L.V.); (F.R.); (D.R.)
| |
Collapse
|
139
|
Deniffel D, Healy GM, Dong X, Ghai S, Salinas-Miranda E, Fleshner N, Hamilton R, Kulkarni G, Toi A, van der Kwast T, Zlotta A, Finelli A, Perlis N, Haider MA. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Radiology 2021; 300:369-379. [PMID: 34032510 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Background In validation studies, risk models for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; Gleason score ≥3+4) combining multiparametric MRI and clinical factors have demonstrated poor calibration (over- and underprediction) and limited use in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies. Purpose MRI-based risk models following local recalibration were compared with a strategy that combined Prostate Imaging Data and Reporting System (PI-RADS; version 2) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) to assess the potential reduction of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 385 patients without prostate cancer diagnosis who underwent multipara-metric MRI (PI-RADS category ≥3) and MRI-targeted biopsy between 2015 and 2019. Recalibration and selection of the best-performing MRI model (MRI-European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC], van Leeuwen, Radtke, and Mehralivand models) were undertaken in cohort C1 (n = 242; 2015-2017). The impact on biopsy decisions was compared with an alternative strategy (no biopsy for PI-RADS category 3 plus PSAd < 0.1 ng/mL per milliliter) in cohort C2 (n = 143; 2018-2019). Discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were assessed by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis, respectively. Results The prevalence of csPCa was 38% (93 of 242 patients) and 45% (64 of 143 patients) in cohorts C1 and C2, respectively. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the highest net benefit for the van Leeuwen and Mehralivand models in C1. Used for biopsy decisions in C2, van Leeuwen (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.9) and Mehralivand (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.86) enabled no net benefit at a risk threshold of 10%. Up to a risk threshold of 15%, net benefit remained inferior to the PI-RADS plus PSAd strategy, which avoided biopsy in 63 per 1000 men, without missing csPCa. Without prior recalibration in C1, three of four models (MRIERSPC, Radtke, Mehralivand) were poorly calibrated and not clinically useful in C2. Conclusion The number of unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with positive MRI may be safely reduced by using a prostate-specific antigen density-based strategy. In a risk-averse scenario, this strategy enabled better biopsy decisions compared with MRI-based risk models. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominik Deniffel
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Gerard M Healy
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Xin Dong
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Sangeet Ghai
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Emmanuel Salinas-Miranda
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Neil Fleshner
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Robert Hamilton
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Girish Kulkarni
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Ants Toi
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Theodorus van der Kwast
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Alexandre Zlotta
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Antonio Finelli
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Nathan Perlis
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| | - Masoom A Haider
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (D.D.); Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X5 (D.D., G.M.H., X.D., E.S.M., A.Z., M.A.H.); Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (D.D., G.M.H., S.G., E.S.M., A.T., M.A.H.); Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (N.F., R.H., G.K., A.Z., A.F., N.P.); Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (T.v.d.K.); and Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.Z.)
| |
Collapse
|
140
|
Soeterik TFW, Hueting TA, Israel B, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Stomps S, Biesma DH, Koffijberg H, Sedelaar M, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Briganti nomograms for the prediction of lymph node involvement of prostate cancer using clinical stage assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 2021; 128:236-243. [PMID: 33630398 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. RESULTS A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. CONCLUSION T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timo F W Soeterik
- Department of Value-Based Healthcare, Santeon, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tom A Hueting
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Israel
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Harm H E van Melick
- Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lea M Dijksman
- Department of Value-Based Healthcare, Santeon, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Value-Based Healthcare, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Saskia Stomps
- Department of Urology, Hospital Group Twente, Hengelo/Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - Douwe H Biesma
- Department of Value-Based Healthcare, Santeon, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Value-Based Healthcare, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel Sedelaar
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
141
|
Presti JC, Alexeeff S, Horton B, Prausnitz S, Avins AL. Prospective validation of the Kaiser Permanente prostate cancer risk calculator in a contemporary, racially diverse, referral population. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:783.e11-783.e19. [PMID: 33962850 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.03.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2020] [Revised: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 03/28/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To prospectively validate a new prostate cancer risk calculator in a racially diverse population. MATERIALS AND METHODS We recently developed, internally validated and published the Kaiser Permanente Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator. This study is a prospective validation of the calculator in a separate, referral population over a 21-month period. All patients were tested with a uniform PSA assay and a standardized systematic, ultrasound-guided biopsy scheme. We report on 3 calculator models: Model 1 included age, race, PSA, prior biopsy status, body mass index, and family history of prostate cancer; Model 2 added digital rectal exam to Model 1 variables; Model 3 added prostate volume to Model 2 variables. We considered three outcomes: high-grade disease (Gleason score ≥7), low-grade disease (Gleason score=6), and no cancer. Predictive discrimination and calibration were calculated. How each model might alter biopsy frequency and outcomes at various thresholds of risk was assessed. We compared the performance of our calculator with two other calculators. RESULTS In 4178 patients (16.2% Asian, 11.3% African American, 13.5% Hispanic), cancer was found in 53%; 62% were Gleason score ≥7. Using a high-grade risk threshold for biopsy of ≥10%, Model 2 predictions would result in 9% of men avoiding a biopsy, while only missing 2% of high-grade cancers. At the same threshold, Model 3 predictions would result in 26% of men avoiding a biopsy, while only missing 5% of high-grade cancers. The c-statistics for Models 1, 2, and 3 to predict high-grade disease vs. low-grade or no cancer were 0.76, 0.79 and 0.85, respectively. The c-statistics for Models 1, 2, and 3 to predict any prostate cancer vs. no cancer were 0.70, 0.72 and 0.80, respectively. All models were well calibrated for all outcomes. Our Model 3 calculator had superior discrimination for high grade disease (c-statistic=0.85, 0.84-0.86) and any cancer (0.80, 0.79-0.82) compared to the PBCG calculator [(0.79, 0.78-0.80); 0.72 (0.70-0.73)] and the PCPT calculator [(0.75, 0.74-0.77); 0.69 (0.67-0.70)], respectively. In the high-grade cancer predicted risk range of 0-30%, our Model 2 was better calibrated than the PCPT and PBCG calculators. CONCLUSIONS This validation of our calculator showed excellent performance characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph C Presti
- Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA; Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA.
| | - Stacey Alexeeff
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA
| | - Brandon Horton
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA
| | | | - Andrew L Avins
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA; Department of Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA
| |
Collapse
|
142
|
Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 24:1110-1119. [PMID: 33941866 PMCID: PMC8616754 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00367-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2020] [Revised: 03/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Background Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of “unnecessary” prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy. Methods This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥−2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility. Results Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%. Conclusions SelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.
Collapse
|
143
|
Scialpi M, Scialpi P, Martorana E, Torre R, Improta A, Aisa MC, D’Andrea A, Di Blasi A. Simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) for biparametric MRI to detect and manage prostate cancer: What urologists need to know. Turk J Urol 2021; 47:175-182. [PMID: 35929870 PMCID: PMC8260088 DOI: 10.5152/tud.2021.21004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2021] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 09/14/2023]
Abstract
Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) of the prostate has emerged as an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, while the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is widely known for mpMRI, a proper PI-RADS for bpMRI has not yet been adopted. In this review, we report the current status and the future directions of bpMRI, and propose a simplified PI-RADS (S-PI-RADS) that could help radiologists and urologists in the detection and management of PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michele Scialpi
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Pietro Scialpi
- Division of Urology, Portogruaro Hospital, Venice, Italy
| | | | - Riccardo Torre
- Division of Radiology, Ospedale Santa Maria, Terni, Italy
| | - Antonio Improta
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | - Maria Cristina Aisa
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Perugia, Italy
| | | | - Aldo Di Blasi
- Division of Radiology, Tivoli Hospital, Tivoli, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
144
|
Diagnostic Accuracy of Single-plane Biparametric and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:855-862. [PMID: 33893066 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Revised: 03/16/2021] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Urological guidelines recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). The resulting increase in MRI demand might place health care systems under substantial stress. OBJECTIVE To determine whether single-plane biparametric MRI (fast MRI) workup could represent an alternative to mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant (cs) PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Between April 2018 and February 2020, 311 biopsy-naïve men aged ≤75 yr with PSA ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination were randomly assigned to 1.5-T fast MRI (n = 213) or mpMRI (n = 98). INTERVENTION All MRI examinations were classified according to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2. Men scored PI-RADS 1-2 underwent 12-core standard biopsy (SBx) and those with PI-RADS 4-5 on fast MRI or PI-RADS 3-5 on mpMRI underwent targeted biopsy in combination with SBx. Equivocal cases on fast MRI (PI-RADS 3) underwent mpMRI and then biopsy according to the findings. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary outcome was to compare the detection rate of csPCa in both study arms, setting a 10% difference for noninferiority. The secondary outcome was to assess the role of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in ruling out men who could avoid biopsy among those with equivocal findings on fast MRI. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The overall MRI detection rate for csPCa was 23.5% (50/213; 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.0-29.8%) with fast MRI and 32.7% (32/98; 95% CI 23.6-42.9%) with mpMRI (difference 9.2%; p = 0.09). The reproducibility of the study could have been affected by its single-center nature. CONCLUSIONS Fast MRI followed by mpMRI in equivocal cases is not inferior to mpMRI in the detection of csPCa among biopsy-naïve men aged ≤75 yr with PSA ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination. These findings could pave the way to broader use of MRI for PCa diagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY A faster MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) protocol with no contrast agent and fewer scan sequences for examination of the prostate is not inferior to the typical MRI approach in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. If our findings are confirmed in other studies, fast MRI could represent a time-saving and less invasive examination for men with suspicion of prostate cancer. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03693703.
Collapse
|
145
|
Pye H, Singh S, Norris JM, Carmona Echeverria LM, Stavrinides V, Grey A, Dinneen E, Pilavachi E, Clemente J, Heavey S, Stopka-Farooqui U, Simpson BS, Bonet-Carne E, Patel D, Barker P, Burling K, Stevens N, Ng T, Panagiotaki E, Hawkes D, Alexander DC, Rodriguez-Justo M, Haider A, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Atkinson D, Allen C, Shaw G, Beeston T, Brizmohun Appayya M, Latifoltojar A, Johnston EW, Emberton M, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Punwani S, Whitaker HC. Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:1985. [PMID: 33924255 PMCID: PMC8074769 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13081985] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Revised: 03/31/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hayley Pye
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
| | - Saurabh Singh
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Joseph M. Norris
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
| | - Lina M. Carmona Echeverria
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
| | - Vasilis Stavrinides
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
| | - Alistair Grey
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
- Department of Urology, Barts Health, NHS Foundation Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Eoin Dinneen
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
- Department of Urology, Barts Health, NHS Foundation Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Elly Pilavachi
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Joey Clemente
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Susan Heavey
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
| | - Urszula Stopka-Farooqui
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
| | - Benjamin S. Simpson
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
| | - Elisenda Bonet-Carne
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (E.B.-C.); (E.P.); (D.C.A.)
| | - Dominic Patel
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (D.P.); (M.R.-J.); (A.H.); (A.F.)
| | - Peter Barker
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrookes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; (P.B.); (K.B.)
| | - Keith Burling
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrookes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; (P.B.); (K.B.)
| | - Nicola Stevens
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Tony Ng
- Molecular Oncology Group, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Eleftheria Panagiotaki
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (E.B.-C.); (E.P.); (D.C.A.)
| | - David Hawkes
- Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Daniel C. Alexander
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (E.B.-C.); (E.P.); (D.C.A.)
| | - Manuel Rodriguez-Justo
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (D.P.); (M.R.-J.); (A.H.); (A.F.)
| | - Aiman Haider
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (D.P.); (M.R.-J.); (A.H.); (A.F.)
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (D.P.); (M.R.-J.); (A.H.); (A.F.)
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - David Atkinson
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Greg Shaw
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
- Department of Urology, Barts Health, NHS Foundation Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Teresita Beeston
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
| | - Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Edward W. Johnston
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
| | - Caroline M. Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.G.); (E.D.); (G.S.)
| | - Hashim U. Ahmed
- Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W2 1NY, UK;
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (S.S.); (E.P.); (J.C.); (N.S.); (D.A.); (T.B.); (M.B.A.); (A.L.); (E.W.J.); (S.P.)
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1H 8NJ, UK; (A.K.); (C.A.)
| | - Hayley C. Whitaker
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; (J.M.N.); (L.M.C.E.); (V.S.); (S.H.); (U.S.-F.); (B.S.S.); (M.E.); (C.M.M.); (H.C.W.)
| |
Collapse
|
146
|
O'Connor LP, Wang AZ, Yerram NK, Long L, Ahdoot M, Lebastchi AH, Gurram S, Zeng J, Harmon SA, Mehralivand S, Merino MJ, Parnes HL, Choyke PL, Shih JH, Wood BJ, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:227-234. [PMID: 33867045 PMCID: PMC9310665 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question. OBJECTIVE To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI. CONCLUSIONS In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease. PATIENT SUMMARY For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke P O'Connor
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alex Z Wang
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nitin K Yerram
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lori Long
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Michael Ahdoot
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amir H Lebastchi
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sandeep Gurram
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Johnathan Zeng
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Stephanie A Harmon
- Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sherif Mehralivand
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Maria J Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Howard L Parnes
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institutes, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter L Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Joanna H Shih
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Bradford J Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
147
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The goal of this study is to review recent findings and evaluate the utility of MRI transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (FBx) techniques and discuss future directions. RECENT FINDINGS FBx detects significantly higher rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) than ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy (SBx), particularly in repeat biopsy settings. FBx has also been shown to detect significantly lower rates of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. In addition, a dedicated prostate MRI can assist in more accurately predicting the Gleason score and provide further information regarding the index cancer location, prostate volume, and clinical stage. The ability to accurately evaluate specific lesions is vital to both focal therapy and active surveillance, for treatment selection, planning, and adequate follow-up. FBx has been demonstrated in multiple high-quality studies to have improved performance in diagnosis of csPCa compared to SBx. The combination of FBx with novel technologies including radiomics, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET), and high-resolution micro-ultrasound may have the potential to further enhance this performance.
Collapse
|
148
|
Li M, Yang L, Yue Y, Xu J, Huang C, Song B. Use of Radiomics to Improve Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2021; 10:631831. [PMID: 33680954 PMCID: PMC7925826 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.631831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2020] [Accepted: 12/30/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate whether a radiomics model can help to improve the performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of 203 patients with pathologically confirmed PCa or non-PCa between March 2015 and December 2016. Patients were divided into a training set (n = 141) and a validation set (n = 62). The radiomics model (Rad-score) was developed based on multi-parametric MRI including T2 weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) imaging, and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging. The combined model involving Rad-score and PI-RADS was compared with PI-RADS for the diagnosis of PCa by using the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS A total of 112 (55.2%) patients had PCa, and 91 (44.8%) patients had benign lesions. For PCa versus non-PCa, the Rad-score had a significantly higher area under the ROC curve (AUC) [0.979 (95% CI, 0.940-0.996)] than PI-RADS [0.905 (0.844-0.948), P = 0.002] in the training set. However, the AUC between them was insignificant in the validation set [0.861 (0.749-0.936) vs. 0.845 (0.731-0.924), P = 0.825]. When Rad-score was added to PI-RADS, the performance of the PI-RADS was significantly improved for the PCa diagnosis (AUC = 0.989, P < 0.001 for the training set and AUC = 0.931, P = 0.038 for the validation set). CONCLUSIONS The radiomics based on multi-parametric MRI can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.1 in PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mou Li
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Ling Yang
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yufeng Yue
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jingxu Xu
- Department of Research Collaboration, R&D Center, Beijing Deepwise & League of PHD Technology Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
| | - Chencui Huang
- Department of Research Collaboration, R&D Center, Beijing Deepwise & League of PHD Technology Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
| | - Bin Song
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
149
|
Practice Patterns and Challenges of Performing and Interpreting Prostate MRI: A Survey by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Disease-Focused Panel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216:952-959. [PMID: 33566638 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.23256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to report on the practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. An electronic survey regarding prostate MRI practice patterns and challenges was sent to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. RESULTS. The response rate was 15% (212/1446). Most (65%) of the respondents were academic abdominal radiologists with 1-5 (52%), 6-10 (20%), 11-20 (15%), and more than 20 (5%) years of experience in reporting prostate MRI. The numbers of prostate MRI examinations reported per week were 0-5 (43%), 6-10 (38%), 11-20 (12%), 21-30 (5%), and more than 30 (2%). Imaging was performed at 3 T (58%), 1.5 T (20%), or either (21%), and most examinations (83%) were performed without an endorectal coil. Highest b values ranged from 800 to 5000 s/mm2; 1400 s/mm2 (26%) and 1500 s/mm2 (30%) were the most common. Most respondents (79%) acquired dynamic contrast-enhanced images with temporal resolution of less than 10 seconds. Most (71%) of the prostate MRI studies were used for fusion biopsy. PI-RADS version 2 was used by 92% of the respondents and template reporting by 80%. Challenges to performing and interpreting prostate MRI were scored on a 1-5 Likert scale (1, easy; 2, somewhat easy; 3, neutral; 4, somewhat difficult; 5, very difficult). The median scores were 2 or 3 for patient preparatory factors. Image acquisition and reporting factors were scored 1-2, except for performing spectroscopy or using an endorectal coil, both of which scored 4. Acquiring patient history scored 2 and quality factors scored 3. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists perform prostate MRI at 3 T without an endorectal coil and interpret the images using PI-RADS version 2. Challenges include obtaining quality images, acquiring feedback, and variability in the interpretation of PI-RADS scores.
Collapse
|
150
|
Ecke TH, Schwaiger D, Nesterov G, Koswig S, Selinski S, Barrett T, Gnanapragasam V, Koch S, Hallmann S. Comparison of initial and second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for transperineal template-guided biopsies with MRI-Ultrasound fusion. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:781.e1-781.e7. [PMID: 33563540 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thorsten H Ecke
- Department of Urology, HELIOS Hospital, Bad Saarow, Germany; Brandenburg Medical School, BB, Germany.
| | - Dagmar Schwaiger
- Department of Radiology, Vivantes Klinikum Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Stephan Koswig
- Department of Radio-Oncology, HELIOS Hospital Bad Saarow, Germany
| | - Silvia Selinski
- Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors at TU Dortmund (IfADo), Dortmund, Germany
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Stefan Koch
- Brandenburg Medical School, BB, Germany; Institute of Pathology, HELIOS Hospital Bad Saarow, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|