Prostate cancer: Diagnosis, parametric imaging and standardized report

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Can mean ADC value and ADC ratio of benign prostate tissue to prostate cancer assist in the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer within the PI-RADSv2 scoring system?

Background

The aim of this study is to investigate whether quantitative DW metrics can provide additive value to the reliable categorization of lesions within existing PI-RADSv2 guidelines. Fifty-eight patients with clinically suspicious prostate cancer who underwent PR examination, PSA serum levels, sextant TRUS-guided biopsies, and bi-parametric MR imaging were included in the study.

Results

Sixty-six lesions were detected by histopathological analysis of surgical specimens. The mean ADC values were significantly lower in tumor than non-tumor tissue. The mean ADC value inversely correlated with Gleason score of tumors with a significant p value < 0.001.Conversely, a positive relationship was found between the ADC ratio (ADC of benign prostatic tissue to prostate cancer) and the pathologic Gleason score with a significant elevation of the ADC ratio along with an increase of the pathologic Gleason score (p < 0.001). ROC curves constructed for the tumor ADC and ADC ratio helped to distinguish pathologically aggressive (Gleason score ≥ 7) from non-aggressive (Gleason score ≤ 6) tumors and to correlate it with PIRADSv2 scoring to predict the presence of clinically significant PCA (PIRADSv2 DW ≥ 4). The ability of the tumor ADC and ADC ratio to predict highly aggressive tumors (GS> 7) was high (AUC for ADC and ADC ratio, 0.946 and 0.897; p = 0.014 and 0.039, respectively). The ADC cut-off value for GS ≥ 7 was < 0.7725 and for GS ≤ 6 was > 0.8620 with sensitivity and specificity 97 and 94%. The cutoff ADC ratio for predicting (GS > 7) was 1.42 and for GS ≤ 6 was > 1.320 with sensitivity and specificity 97 and 92%. By applying this ADC ratio cut-off value the sensitivity and specificity of reader 1 for correct categorization of PIRADSv2 DW > 4 increased from 90 and 68% to 95 and 90% and that of reader 2 increased from 94 and 88% to 97 and 92%, respectively.

Conclusion

Estimation of DW metrics (ADC and ADC ratio between benign prostatic tissue and prostate cancer) allow the non-invasive assessment of biological aggressiveness of prostate cancer and allow reliable application of the PIRADSv2 scoring to determine clinically significant cancer (DW score > 4) which may contribute in planning initial treatment strategies.

Current practice and access to prostate MR imaging in France

PURPOSE

To obtain an overview of the degree of discrepancy between current clinical practice of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in France and recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A brief survey was sent to 1229 members of the French society of urology in order to identify their indications of prostate MRI and its impact on patient management. The urologists were asked to answer several questions regarding age, practice modality, prostate MRI examinations (technique, indication before first biopsy, second biopsy, cancer staging, active surveillance, recurrence, focal therapy) and quality of reports.

RESULTS

A total of 445 responses were received (participation rate of 36%). The mean delay for obtaining an appointment for prostate MRI ranged between 15-30 days in 54%. Fifty-four percent of MRI reports contained a PIRADS score and 23% a Likert score. The indications of multiparametric-MRI were tumor detection/location prior to repeat biopsy (90%), cancer staging (85%), management of patients under active surveillance (85%), selection of candidates to focal therapy (63%), tumor detection/location in biopsy naïve patients (53%), detection of local recurrence after radical (51%). Only 119 urologists (28.6%) had access to image fusion (MRI and transrectal ultrasound) and 351 (85.4%) used cognitive fusion. Mostly, targeted biopsies are done by urologists alone (nearly 80%), a very few are done by radiologists (8%) or by the two of them in collaboration (12%).

CONCLUSION

The majority of urologists consider that prostate MRI is essential for the management of patients with prostate cancer. Practices are ahead of recommendations particularly before the first biopsy and in active surveillance.

How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiparametric MRI has gained tremendous importance in the daily practice for patients at risk or diagnosed with prostate cancer. Interpretation of multiparametric-MRI is a complex task, supposedly restricted to experienced radiologists. The purpose of this review is to analyze fundamentals of multiparametric-MRI interpretation and to describe how multiparametric-MRI training could be organized.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, professional guidelines have been published to provide technical and interpretation frameworks and harmonize multiparametric-MRI practice, but the question of physicians training in prostate multiparametric-MRI reading is still pending. What kind of education, practice, and training makes a radiologist able to reliably interpret a prostate multiparametric-MRI? How can findings be reported to be easily understood? How much experience is needed? How can we train urologists and other physicians to review the examinations they request? Is double-reading necessary?

SUMMARY

An institutional-based competency certification process for prostate multiparametric-MRI interpretation may encourage nonspecialized radiologists to qualify for prostate imaging in a standardized and reproducible way, exactly as urologists need it.