High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility

Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a diverse, multiethnic population

PURPOSE

There is not yet satisfactory performance data comparing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus biparametric MRI (bpMRI) for detecting prostate cancer (PCa), particularly in high-risk populations. We compared both protocols for detecting overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (CS-PCa; defined as Grade Group ≥ 2) in a multiethnic urban population.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical record data from men who underwent image-guided fusion prostate biopsy (FB) between 2016 and 2021 at our institution. Patient characteristics, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores, and FB outcomes were analyzed based on MRI protocol. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to examine associations of bpMRI versus mpMRI for detecting overall PCa and CS-PCa in targeted lesions, among all patients and stratified by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Overall, 566 men (44.0% Non-Hispanic Black [NHB]; 27.0% Hispanic) with 975 PI-RADS 3-5 lesions on MRI underwent FB. Of these, 312 (55%) men with 497 lesions underwent mpMRI and 254 (45%) men with 478 lesions underwent bpMRI. On multivariate analyses among all men, the odds of detecting overall PCa (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05-3.11, p = 0.031) and CS-PCa (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.16-4.00, p = 0.014) on FB were higher for lesions identified on bpMRI than mpMRI. When stratified by race/ethnicity, the odds of detecting overall PCa (OR = 1.86; p = 0.15) and CS-PCa (OR = 2.20; p = 0.06) were not statistically different between lesions detected on bpMRI or mpMRI.

CONCLUSION

BpMRI has similar diagnostic performance to mpMRI in detecting overall and CS-PCa within a racially/ethnically diverse population. BpMRI can be utilized for evaluating suspected CS-PCa among NHB and Hispanic men.

Lifetime Health and Economic Outcomes of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as First-Line Screening for Prostate Cancer : A Decision Model Analysis

BACKGROUND

Contemporary prostate cancer (PCa) screening uses first-line prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, possibly followed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for men with elevated PSA levels. First-line biparametric MRI (bpMRI) screening has been proposed as an alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line bpMRI versus PSA-based screening.

DESIGN

Decision analysis using a microsimulation model.

DATA SOURCES

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database; randomized trials.

TARGET POPULATION

U.S. men aged 55 years with no prior screening or PCa diagnosis.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care system.

INTERVENTION

Biennial screening to age 69 years using first-line PSA testing (test-positive threshold, 4 µg/L) with or without second-line mpMRI or first-line bpMRI (test-positive threshold, PI-RADS [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 to 5 or 4 to 5), followed by biopsy guided by MRI or MRI plus transrectal ultrasonography.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Screening tests, biopsies, diagnoses, overdiagnoses, treatments, PCa deaths, quality-adjusted and unadjusted life-years saved, and costs.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

For 1000 men, first-line bpMRI versus first-line PSA testing prevented 2 to 3 PCa deaths and added 10 to 30 life-years (4 to 11 days per person) but increased the number of biopsies by 1506 to 4174 and the number of overdiagnoses by 38 to 124 depending on the biopsy imaging scheme. At conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, first-line PSA testing with mpMRI followed by either biopsy approach for PI-RADS 4 to 5 produced the greatest net monetary benefits.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

First-line PSA testing remained more cost-effective even if bpMRI was free, all men with low-risk PCa underwent surveillance, or screening was quadrennial.

LIMITATION

Performance of first-line bpMRI was based on second-line mpMRI data.

CONCLUSION

Decision analysis suggests that comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PCa screening are driven by false-positive results and overdiagnoses, favoring first-line PSA testing with mpMRI over first-line bpMRI.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

[Prostate cancer screening-current overview]

BACKGROUND

The harm-to-benefit ratio of prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains controversial mainly due to the unfavorable test characteristics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test.

METHODS

In this nonsystematic review, we present a current overview of the body of evidence on prostate cancer screening with a focus on the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate.

RESULTS

Evidence generated in large randomized controlled trials showed that PSA-based screening significantly decreases cancer-specific mortality. The main obstacle in developing and implementing PCa screening strategies is the resulting overdiagnosis and as a consequence overtreatment of indolent cancers. Opportunistic screening is characterized by an adverse benefit-to-harm ratio and should, therefore, not be recommended. The German Statutory Early Detection Program for prostate cancer, which consists of a digital rectal examination (DRE) as a stand-alone screening test, is not evidence-based, neither specific nor sensitive enough and results in unnecessary diagnostics. The European Commission recently urged member states to develop population-based and organized risk-adapted PSA-based screening programs, which are currently tested in the ongoing German PROBASE trial. Finetuning of the diagnostic pathway following PSA-testing seems key to improve its positive and negative predictive value and thereby making PCa screening more accurate. Incorporation of prostatic MRI into screening strategies leads to more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, while diagnosis of indolent cancers is reduced. In the future, molecular liquid-based biomarkers have the potential to complement or even replace PSA in PCa screening and further personalize screening strategies. Active surveillance as an alternative to immediate radical therapy of demographically increasing PCa diagnoses can potentially further improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of organized screening.

CONCLUSION

Early detection of PCa should be organized on a population level into personalized and evidence-based screening strategies. Multiparametric MRI of the prostate may play a key role in this setting.

Performance of an ultra-fast deep-learning accelerated MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer compared to a standard multiparametric protocol

OBJECTIVES

To establish and evaluate an ultra-fast MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to the standard multiparametric (mp) protocol, reducing scan time and maintaining adequate diagnostic performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective single-center study included consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa between December 2022 and March 2023. A PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI protocol was acquired in a 3 T scanner (scan time: 25 min 45 sec). In addition, two deep-learning (DL) accelerated sequences (T2- and diffusion-weighted) were acquired, serving as a screening protocol (scan time: 3 min 28 sec). Two readers evaluated image quality and the probability of PCa regarding PI-RADSv2.1 scores in two sessions. The diagnostic performance of the screening protocol with mpMRI serving as the reference standard was derived. Inter- and intra-reader agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.

RESULTS

We included 77 patients with 97 lesions (mean age: 66 years; SD: 7.7). Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%/100% and 89%/98% (cut-off ≥ PI-RADS 4) for reader 1 (R1) and reader 2 (R2), respectively. Mean image quality was 3.96 (R1) and 4.35 (R2) for the standard protocol vs. 4.74 and 4.57 for the screening protocol (p < 0.05). Inter-reader agreement was moderate (κ: 0.55) for the screening protocol and substantial (κ: 0.61) for the multiparametric protocol.

CONCLUSION

The ultra-fast screening protocol showed similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality compared to the mpMRI in under 15% of scan time, improving efficacy and enabling the implementation of screening protocols in clinical routine.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The ultra-fast protocol enables examinations without contrast administration, drastically reducing scan time to 3.5 min with similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality. This facilitates patient-friendly, efficient examinations and addresses the conflict of increasing demand for examinations at currently exhausted capacities.

KEY POINTS

Time-consuming MRI protocols are in conflict with an expected increase in examinations required for prostate cancer screening. An ultra-fast MRI protocol shows similar performance and better image quality compared to the standard protocol. Deep-learning acceleration facilitates efficient and patient-friendly examinations, thus improving prostate cancer screening capacity.

Abbreviated MRI Protocols in the Abdomen and Pelvis

Abbreviated MRI (AMRI) protocols rely on the acquisition of a limited number of sequences tailored to a specific question. The main objective of AMRI protocols is to reduce exam duration and costs, while maintaining an acceptable diagnostic performance. AMRI is of increasing interest in the radiology community; however, challenges limiting clinical adoption remain. In this review, we will address main abdominal and pelvic applications of AMRI in the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate, including diagnostic performance, pitfalls, limitations, and cost effectiveness will also be discussed. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

Contemporary Approach to Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System Score 3 Lesions

The aim of this article is to review the technical and clinical considerations encountered with PI-RADS 3 lesions, which are equivocal for clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) with detection rates ranging between 10% and 35%. The number of PI-RADS 3 lesions reported vary according to several factors including MRI quality and radiologist training/expertise among the most influential. PI-RADS v.2.1 updated definitions for scores 2 and 3 in the PZ and scores 1 and 2 in the TZ is reviewed. The role of DWI role is highlighted in the assessment of the TZ with the possibility of upgrading score 2 lesions to score 3 based on DWI score. Given the increased utilization for prostate MRI, biparametric MRI can be considered as an alternative for low-risk patients where there is a need to rule out csPCa acknowledging this technique may increase the number of indeterminate cases going for biopsies. Management of patients with equivocal lesions at mpMRI and factors influencing biopsy decision process remain as an unmet need and additional studies using molecular/imaging markers as well as artificial intelligence tools are needed to further address their role in proper patient selection for biopsy.

Update on Optimization of Prostate MR Imaging Technique and Image Quality

Prostate MR imaging quality has improved dramatically over recent times, driven by advances in hardware, software, and improved functional imaging techniques. MRI now plays a key role in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up, but outcomes of the MRI-directed pathway are heavily dependent on image quality and optimization. MR sequences can be affected by patient-related degradations relating to motion and susceptibility artifacts which may enable only partial mitigation. In this Review, we explore issues relating to prostate MRI acquisition and interpretation, mitigation strategies at a patient and scanner level, PI-QUAL reporting, and future directions in image quality, including artificial intelligence solutions.

Current magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer

Recent developments in multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy have made it possible to detect clinically significant cancers more accurately and efficiently than ever before. Furthermore, software that enables easy MRI/US image fusion has been developed and is already available on the market, and this has provided a tailwind for the spread of MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic strategies. Such precise diagnosis of prostate cancer localization is essential for highly accurate focal therapy. In addition, a recent large-scale study applying MRI to community screening for prostate cancer has reported its usefulness. By contrast, concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the existence of inter-reader variability in MRI diagnosis, and issues with current MRI-targeted biopsy have emerged. In this article, we review the development of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to date and the current issues and discuss future directions.

Bi-parametric prostate MRI with a recall system for contrast enhanced imaging: Improving accessibility while maintaining quality

PURPOSE

To review the efficacy of a recall system for bi-parametric non-contrast prostate MRI (bp-MRI).

METHODS

A bi-parametric protocol was instituted in July 2020 for all patients who had a prostate MRI requested, excluding those after treatment of prostate cancer, patients with hip prosthesis or pacemaker, and those who lived out-of-town. The protocol consisted of tri-planar T2-weighted and diffusion weighted images (DWI) (b = 50, 800 s/mm2 for ADC map; b = 1,500 s/mm2 acquired separately) in accordance with the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 guidelines. After interpretation of bp-MRI exams, patients with equivocal (PI-RADS 3) lesions in peripheral zone (PZ) or any technical limitations were recalled for contrast administration.

RESULTS

Out of 909 bp-MRI scans performed from July 2020 to April 2021, only 52 (5.7 %) were recalled, of which 46 (88.5 %) attended. Amongst these, 41/52 (78.8 %) were recalled for PZ PI-RADS 3 lesions, while the rest of 11 (21.2 %) cases were recalled for technical reasons. Mean time to subsequent recall scan was 11.6 days. On assessment of post-contrast imaging, 29/46 (63 %) cases were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 while 17/46 (37 %) remained PI-RADS 3. This system avoided contrast-agent use in 857 patients, with contrast cost savings of €64,620 (US$68,560) and 214 hours 15 minutes of scanner time was saved. This allowed 255 additional bp-MRI scans to be performed, reducing the waitlist from 1 year to 2-3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

A bi-parametric prostate MRI protocol with a robust recall system for contrast administration not only saved time eliminating the marked backlog but was also more cost efficient without compromising the quality of patient care.

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Study in the mpMRI of the Prostate-Unnecessary or Underutilised? A Narrative Review

The aim of this review is to summarise recent scientific literature regarding the clinical use of DCE-MRI as a component of multiparametric resonance imaging of the prostate. This review presents the principles of DCE-MRI acquisition and analysis, the current role of DCE-MRI in clinical practice with special regard to its role in presently available categorisation systems, and an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of DCE-MRI described in the current literature. DCE-MRI is an important functional sequence that requires intravenous administration of a gadolinium-based contrast agent and gives information regarding the vascularity and capillary permeability of the lesion. Although numerous studies have confirmed that DCE-MRI has great potential in the diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer, its role is still inadequate in the PI-RADS categorisation. Moreover, there have been numerous scientific discussions about abandoning the intravenous application of gadolinium-based contrast as a routine part of MRI examination of the prostate. In this review, we summarised the recent literature on the advantages and disadvantages of DCE-MRI, focusing on an overview of currently available data on bpMRI and mpMRI, as well as on studies providing information on the potential better usability of DCE-MRI in improving the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI examinations of the prostate.

Addressing image misalignments in multi-parametric prostate MRI for enhanced computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis on multi-parametric magnetic resonance images (MRI) requires radiologists with a high level of expertise. Misalignments between the MRI sequences can be caused by patient movement, elastic soft-tissue deformations, and imaging artifacts. They further increase the complexity of the task prompting radiologists to interpret the images. Recently, computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools have demonstrated potential for PCa diagnosis typically relying on complex co-registration of the input modalities. However, there is no consensus among research groups on whether CAD systems profit from using registration. Furthermore, alternative strategies to handle multi-modal misalignments have not been explored so far. Our study introduces and compares different strategies to cope with image misalignments and evaluates them regarding to their direct effect on diagnostic accuracy of PCa. In addition to established registration algorithms, we propose 'misalignment augmentation' as a concept to increase CAD robustness. As the results demonstrate, misalignment augmentations can not only compensate for a complete lack of registration, but if used in conjunction with registration, also improve the overall performance on an independent test set.

Prostate cancer screening-stepping forward with MRI

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review the literature on the integration of MRI as a diagnostic tool in prostate cancer screening and offer practical recommendations for optimising its use.

METHODS

Existing research studies, clinical guidelines and expert opinions were reviewed to support the optimisation standards for MRI use in screening. Consolidated screening principles were used to make appropriate recommendations regarding the integration of MRI into the diagnostic pathway.

RESULTS

To strike a balance between the potential benefits of early detection on mortality and minimising the harm of over-diagnosing indolent cancers, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the context of MRI use. The key to optimisation is patient selections and MRI-targeted biopsies. For men at higher-than-average risk, it is essential to use screening-specific MRI protocols and establish accuracy levels and interpretation criteria. Optimisation of readings by the automation of data acquisition, image quality monitoring, post-processing, radiologist certification and deep-learning computer-aided software is needed. The optimal utilisation of MRI involves its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging.

CONCLUSION

MRI in the prostate cancer screening pathway can bring substantial diagnostic benefits. By carefully considering its advantages, limitations and safety concerns and integrating it into a multistep diagnostic pathway, clinicians can improve outcomes while minimising harm to screening participants.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The manuscript discusses the role of MRI in prostate cancer screening, highlighting its potential to improve accuracy and reduce overdiagnosis. It emphasises the importance of optimising protocols and integrating MRI into a multistep diagnostic pathway for successfully delivering screening benefits.

KEY POINTS

• Population screening for prostate cancer is a new indication for prostate MRI that allows the detection of high-risk cancers while reducing the need for biopsies and associated harm. • To optimise prostate cancer screening using MRI, it is essential to redefine MRI protocols; establish accuracy levels, reliability and interpretation criteria; and optimise reading (including post-processing, image quality, radiologist certification, and deep-learning computer-aided software). • The optimal utilisation of MRI for prostate cancer screening would involve its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging.

Development and validation of a nomogram based on biparametric MRI PI-RADS v2.1 and clinical parameters to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies

BACKGROUND

Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) is a faster, contrast-free, and less expensive MRI protocol that facilitates the detection of prostate cancer. The aim of this study is to determine whether a biparametric MRI PI-RADS v2.1 score-based model could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The patients who underwent MRI-guided biopsies and systematic biopsies between January 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The development cohort used to derive the prediction model consisted of 275 patients. Two validation cohorts included 201 patients and 181 patients from 2 independent institutions. Predictive models based on the bpMRI PI-RADS v2.1 score (bpMRI score) and clinical parameters were used to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and compared by analyzing the area under the curve (AUC) and decision curves. Spearman correlation analysis was utilized to determine the relationship between International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade and clinical parameters/bpMRI score.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models were constructed using data from the development cohort to generate nomograms. By applying the models to the all cohorts, the AUC for csPCa was significantly higher for the bpMRI PI-RADS v2.1 score-based model than for the clinical model in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Considering the test trade-offs, urologists would agree to perform 10 fewer bpMRIs to avoid one unnecessary biopsy, with a risk threshold of 10-20% in practice. Correlation analysis showed a strong correlation between the bpMRI score and ISUP grade.

CONCLUSION

A predictive model based on the bpMRI score and clinical parameters significantly improved csPCa risk stratification, and the bpMRI score can be used to determine the aggressiveness of PCa prior to biopsy.

PI-RADS 3 lesions: a critical review and discussion of how to improve management

Since the publication of PI-RADS v1 in 2012, the debate regarding the question of how to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions has been mostly unsolved. However, based on our review of the current literature we discuss possible solutions and improvements to the original classification, factors such as PSAD (Prostate Specific Antigen Density), age, and tumor volume, in the decision of whether to proceed with a biopsy or not.

PI-RADS 3 score: A retrospective experience of clinically significant prostate cancer detection

Rationale and objectives

The study aims to propose an optimal workflow in patients with a PI-RADS 3 (PR-3) assessment category (AC) through determining the timing and type of pathology interrogation used for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in these men based upon a 5-year retrospective review in a large academic medical center.

Materials and methods

This United States Health Insurance Probability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study included men without prior csPCa diagnosis who received PR-3 AC on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI). Subsequent incidence and time to csPCa diagnosis and number/type of prostate interventions was recorded. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test and continuous data using ANOVA omnibus F-test.

Results

Our cohort of 3238 men identified 332 who received PR-3 as their highest AC on MRI, 240 (72.3%) of whom had pathology follow-up within 5 years. csPCa was detected in 76/240 (32%) and non-csPCa in 109/240 (45%) within 9.0 ± 10.6 months. Using a non-targeted trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy as the initial approach (n = 55), another diagnostic procedure was required to diagnose csPCa in 42/55 (76.4%) of men, compared with 3/21(14.3%) men with an initial MR targeted-biopsy approach (n = 21); (p < 0.0001). Those with csPCa had higher median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density, and lower median prostate volume (p < 0.003) compared with non-csPCa/no PCa.

Conclusion

Most patients with PR-3 AC underwent prostate pathology exams within 5 years, 32% of whom were found to have csPCa within 1 year of MRI, most often with a higher PSA density and a prior non-csPCa diagnosis. Addition of a targeted biopsy approach initially reduced the need for a second biopsy to reach a for csPCa diagnosis. Thus, a combination of systematic and targeted biopsy is advised in men with PR-3 and a co-existing abnormal PSA and PSA density.

Feasibility of periprocedural decision on the administration of intravenous contrast media in MRI for endometriosis

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of a periprocedural decision on the administration of intravenous contrast media in MRI for endometriosis and to evaluate the frequency and reasons of contrast administrations, the corresponding MRI diagnoses, and outcome.

METHODS

In this retrospective, descriptive cross-sectional single-center study all patients were included, who received a pelvic MRI for evaluation of endometriosis between April 2021 and February 2023. Frequency and reasons of optional intravenous administration of contrast media, corresponding MRI diagnoses and clinical outcome data were noted after re-review of all images, review of radiology reports and review of patients' medical records. The decision on the administration of intravenous contrast media had been made by experienced radiologists, depending on the findings of the non-contrast sequences and the presence of ancillary questions.

RESULTS

303 consecutive patients (mean age, 33.4 years +/- 8.3 [standard deviation]) were evaluated. Periprocedural decision on the administration of intravenous contrast media had been made in all cases. For 219/303 (72.3%) patients, it was decided after review of the non-contrast sequences and exclusion of ancillary questions that contrast administration was not required. 84/303 (27.7%) patients received contrast media, and the most frequent reasons were indeterminate ovarian lesion (41/84 cases, 48.8%) or suspicion of pelvic venous congestion syndrome (26/84 cases, 31.0%). No relevant differences in patient outcomes could be noted (non-contrast/contrast MRI).

CONCLUSIONS

A periprocedural decision on the administration of contrast media in MRI for endometriosis is feasible with little effort. It allows the administration of contrast media to be avoided in most cases. If the administration of contrast media is deemed necessary, repeat examinations can be avoided.

Glypican1: a potential cancer biomarker for nanotargeted therapy

Glypicans (GPCs) are generally involved in cellular signaling, growth and proliferation. Previous studies reported their roles in cancer proliferation. GPC1 is a co-receptor for a variety of growth-related ligands, thereby stimulating the tumor microenvironment by promoting angiogenesis and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). This work reviews GPC1-biomarker-assisted drug discovery by the application of nanostructured materials, creating nanotheragnostics for targeted delivery and application in liquid biopsies. The review includes details of GPC1 as a potential biomarker in cancer progression as well as a potential candidate for nano-mediated drug discovery.

The role of AI in prostate MRI quality and interpretation: Opportunities and challenges

Prostate MRI plays an important role in imaging the prostate gland and surrounding tissues, particularly in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With the widespread adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in recent years, the concerns surrounding the variability of imaging quality have garnered increased attention. Several factors contribute to the inconsistency of image quality, such as acquisition parameters, scanner differences and interobserver variabilities. While efforts have been made to standardize image acquisition and interpretation via the development of systems, such as PI-RADS and PI-QUAL, the scoring systems still depend on the subjective experience and acumen of humans. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in many applications, including medical imaging, due to its ability to automate tasks and lower human error rates. These advantages have the potential to standardize the tasks of image interpretation and quality control of prostate MRI. Despite its potential, thorough validation is required before the implementation of AI in clinical practice. In this article, we explore the opportunities and challenges of AI, with a focus on the interpretation and quality of prostate MRI.

Impact of prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) score on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scores on the diagnostic performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in a targeted biopsy cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

300 patients who underwent both mpMRI and biopsy were included. PI-QUAL scores were retrospectively assigned by two radiologists in consensus and were correlated to pre-biopsy PI-RADS scores and biopsy outcomes. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2.

RESULTS

Image quality was optimal (PI-QUAL ≥ 4) in 249/300 (83%) and suboptimal (PI-QUAL < 4) in 51/300 (17%). The proportion of PI-RADS 3 scores referred for biopsy was higher in scans of suboptimal vs optimal quality (51% vs 33%). For PI-QUAL < 4 scans, the positive predictive value (PPV) was lower compared to PI-QUAL ≥ 4 (35% [95%CI: 22, 48] vs 48% [95%CI: 41, 55]; difference -13% [95%CI: -27, 2]; p 0.090), as was the detection rate of csPCa in both PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4-5 (15% vs 23% and 56 vs 63%, respectively). The overall MRI quality increased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan quality may affect the diagnostic performance of prostate mpMRI in patients undergoing MRI-guided biopsy. Scans of suboptimal quality (PI-QUAL < 4) were associated with lower PPV for csPCa.

Abbreviated Versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate-Cancer Patients: Comparison of Accuracy and Clinical Utility as a Decisional Tool

(1) Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between full multiparametric contrast-enhanced prostate MRI (mpMRI) and abbreviated dual-sequence prostate MRI (dsMRI) in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) who were candidates for active surveillance. (2) Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of low-risk PCa in the previous 6 months had a mpMRI scan prior to a saturation biopsy and a subsequent MRI cognitive transperineal targeted biopsy (for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). The dsMRI images were obtained from the mpMRI protocol. The images were selected by a study coordinator and assigned to two readers blinded to the biopsy results (R1 and R2). Inter-reader agreement for clinically significant cancer was evaluated with Cohen's kappa. The dsMRI and mpMRI accuracy was calculated for each reader (R1 and R2). The clinical utility of the dsMRI and mpMRI was investigated with a decision-analysis model. (3) Results: The dsMRI sensitivity and specificity were 83.3%, 31.0%, 75.0%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The mpMRI sensitivity and specificity were 91.7%, 31.0%, 83.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The inter-reader agreement for the detection of csPCa was moderate (k = 0.53) and good (k = 0.63) for dsMRI and mpMRI, respectively. The AUC values for the dsMRI were 0.77 and 0.62 for the R1 and R2, respectively. The AUC values for the mpMRI were 0.79 and 0.66 for R1 and R2, respectively. No AUC differences were found between the two MRI protocols. At any risk threshold, the mpMRI showed a higher net benefit than the dsMRI for both R1 and R2. (4) Conclusions: The dsMRI and mpMRI showed similar diagnostic accuracy for csPCa in male candidates for active surveillance.

The diagnostic performance in clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS version 2.1: simplified bpMRI versus standard mpMRI

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between bpMRI with only axial T2WI (simplified bpMRI) and standard-multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).

METHODS

A total of 569 patients who underwent mpMRI followed by biopsy or prostatectomy were enrolled in this retrospective study. According to PI-RADS v2.1, three radiologists (A, B, C) from three centers blinded to clinical variables were assigned scores on lesions with simplified bpMRI and then with mpMRI 2 weeks later. Diagnostic performance of simplified bpMRI was compared with mpMRI using histopathology as reference standard.

RESULTS

For all the three radiologists, the diagnostic sensitivity was significantly higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI (P < 0.001 to P = 0.035); and although specificity was also higher with mpMRI than with simplified bpMRI for radiologist B and radiologist C, it was statistically significant only for radiologist B (P = 0.011, P = 0.359, respectively). On the contrary, for radiologist A, specificity was higher with simplified bpMRI than with mpMRI (P = 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was significantly higher for mpMRI than for simplified bpMRI except for radiologist A (radiologist A: 0.903 vs 0.913, P = 0.1542; radiologist B: 0.861 vs 0.834 P = 0.0013; and radiologist C: 0.884 vs 0.848, P = 0.0003). Interobserver reliability of PI-RADS v2.1 showed good agreement for both simplified bpMRI (kappa = 0.665) and mpMRI (kappa = 0.739).

CONCLUSION

Although the detection of csPCa with simplified bpMRI was comparatively lower than that with mpMRI, the diagnostic performance was still high in simplified bpMRI. Our data justify using mpMRI outperforms simplified bpMRI for prostate cancer screening and imply simplified bpMRI as a potential screening tool.

Monoparametric high-resolution diffusion weighted MRI as a possible first step in an MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for men with suspicion of prostate cancer

Purpose

To explore if a high-resolution diffusion weighted MRI sequence (DWI-only) could be used as a first step in an MRI-directed diagnostic pathway.

Methods

Prospective single center study that between December 2017 and August 2018 included 129 consecutive patients with suspicion of prostate cancer into a PI-RADS-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway. All patients had multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Based on only the transversal high-resolution DWI images two consultant radiologists prospectively categorized the findings as positive, equivocal, or negative for clinically significant cancer. The radiologists then interpreted the mpMRI and assigned a PI-RADS score. A third independent reader retrospectively categorized the DWI-only exams without access to the mpMRI. The interpretations of DWI-only were compared to the PI-RADS classification from mpMRI and the histopathology from the biopsies. Non-biopsied patients were followed in a safety net monitoring for 56 months.

Results

Based on DWI-only, 29 (22.5%) of the exams were categorized as negative, 38 (29.5%) as equivocal and 62 (48.1%) as positive. Of the 56 patients with PI-RADS 4-5 at mpMRI, 55 were also categorized as positive at DWI-only. All patients diagnosed with clinically significant cancer were identified using DWI-only. 56 months of safety net monitoring did not reveal any clinically significant cancers among patients with exams categorized as negative or equivocal. There was high inter-reader agreement on positive findings, but less agreement on negative and equivocal findings.

Conclusions

In this concept study, the monoparametric DWI-only identified all patients with clinically significant cancer in a mpMRI-directed diagnostic pathway.

bpMRI and mpMRI for detecting prostate cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Background

We aimed to compare the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer(csPCa) by biparametric (bp-) and multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

Materials and Methods

A total of 699 patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy in the Department of Urology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University from January 2018 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis was used to explore the influencing factors associated with the detection rates of PCa and csPCa. According to MRI examination before biopsy, the patients were divided into bpMRI group and mpMRI group. The detection rates of PCa and csPCa by bpMRI and mpMRI were compared. Furthermore, stratified analysis was performed for patients in these two groups to compare the detection rates of PCa and csPCa at different tPSA intervals, different prostate volume (PV) intervals and different PI-RADS V2 scores.

Results

A total of 571 patients were finally analyzed in this study after exclusion, and the overall detection rate of PCa was 54.5%. Multivariate analysis showed that patient age, tPSA level, prostate volume and PI-RADS V2 score were independent risk factors affecting the detection rates of PCa and csPCa. The detection rates of PCa and csPCa by bpMRI and mpMRI were comparable (51.3% vs. 57.9%, 44.0% vs. 48.0%, both P > 0.05), with no statistical significance. In the tPSA 10-20 ng/ml interval, the detection rates of PCa (59.72% vs. 40.35%, P = 0.011) and csPCa (51.39% vs. 28.82%, P = 0.005) by mpMRI were significantly higher than those by bpMRI, while in other tPSA interval (tPSA < 4 ng/ml, 4-10 ng/ml, 20-100 ng/ml), different PVs (≤30 ml, 30-60 ml, >60 ml) and different PI-RADS V2 scores (3, 4, and 5), the detection rates of PCa and csPCa were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

For detecting PCa and csPCa, bpMRI and mpMRI had similar diagnostic efficacies, whereas mpMRI detected more PCa and csPCa in the tPSA interval of 10-20 ng/ml.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Comparison of Multiparametric and Fast MRI Protocols in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer and a Detailed Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the long acquisition time and high cost of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), biparametric and, more recently, fast prostate magnetic resonance imaging (fpMRI) protocols have been described. However, there is insufficient data about the diagnostic performance and cost of fpMRI.

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performances and cost analysis of fpMRI and mpMRI in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

A total of 103 patients (63 had csPCA) with a mean age of 66.83 (± 7.22) years were included.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 1.5-T; T1- and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo imaging (T1WI and T2WI), echo-planar diffusion-weighted images, and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1W imaging.

ASSESSMENT

Three readers independently evaluated the fpMRI and mpMRI images in different sessions blinded to all patient information. Diagnostic performances of fpMRI and mpMRI were evaluated. Kappa coefficient (κ) was used to determine the interreader and intrareader agreement. A detailed cost analysis was performed for each protocol.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Receiver operating characteristics analysis, area under the curve (AUC), and κ test were used. Diagnostic performance parameters were also calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 63 malignant index lesions (csPCA), 53/63 of those (84.1%) originated from the peripheral zone and 10/63 lesions (15.9%) originated from the transition zone. The AUC values for fpMRI were 0.878 for reader 1, 0.937 for reader 2, and 0.855 for reader 3. For mpMRI, the AUC values were 0.893 for reader 1, 0.94 for reader 2, and 0.862 for reader 3. Inter and intrareader agreements were moderate to substantial (κ range, 0.5-0.79). The total cost per examination was calculated as €12.39 and €30.10 for fpMRI and mpMRI, respectively.

DATA CONCLUSIONS

Fast MRI protocol has similar diagnostic performance with mpMRI in detecting csPCA, and fpMRI can be considered an alternative protocol that could create a lower financial burden on health-care systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 6.

Prostate MRI Qualification: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Prostate MRI is now established as a first-line investigation for individuals presenting with suspected localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. Successful delivery of the MRI-directed pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis relies on high-quality imaging as well as the interpreting radiologist's experience and expertise. Radiologist certification in prostate MRI may help limit interreader variability, optimize outcomes, and provide individual radiologists with documentation of meeting predefined standards. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review summarizes existing certification proposals, recognizing variable progress across regions in establishing prostate MRI certification programs. To our knowledge, Germany is the only country with a prostate MRI certification process that is currently available for radiologists. However, prostate MRI certification programs have also recently been proposed in the United States and United Kingdom and by European professional society consensus panels. Recommended qualification processes entail a multifaceted approach, incorporating components such as minimum case numbers, peer learning, course participation, continuing medical education credits, and feedback from pathology results. Given the diversity in health care systems, including in the provision and availability of MRI services, national organizations will likely need to take independent approaches to certification and accreditation. The relevant professional organizations should begin developing these programs or continue existing plans for implementation.

Risk Stratification and Artificial Intelligence in Early Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Detection of Prostate Cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer and now plays an upfront role before prostate biopsies. If a suspicious lesion is found on MRI, the subsequent biopsy can be targeted. A sharp increase is expected in the number of men who will undergo prostate MRI. The challenge is to provide good image quality and diagnostic accuracy while meeting the demands of the expected higher workload. A possible solution to this challenge is to include a suitable risk stratification tool before imaging. Other solutions, such as smarter and shorter MRI protocols, need to be explored. For most of these solutions, artificial intelligence (AI) can play an important role. AI applications have the potential to improve the diagnostic quality of the prostate MRI pathway and speed up the work. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of prostate cancer is increasing. Risk stratification of patients before imaging and the use of shorter scan protocols can help in managing MRI resources. Artificial intelligence can also play a role in automating some tasks.

Head-to-head comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI of the prostate before robot-assisted transperineal fusion prostate biopsy

Purpose

Prostate biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) might be an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI, including dynamic contrast imaging, DCE) to detect and guide targeted biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, there is no upgrading peripheral zone PI-RADS 3 to PI-RADS 4 without DCE in bpMRI. The aim of this study was to evaluate bpMRI against mpMRI in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) scheduled for robot-assisted-transperineal fusion-prostate biopsy (RA-TB).

Methods

Retrospective single-center-study of 563 biopsy-naïve men (from 01/2015 to 09/2018, mean PSA 9.7 ± 6.5 ng/mL) with PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI at 3 T before RA-TB. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2 in any core. Two experienced readers independently evaluated images according to PI-RADSv2.1 criteria (separate readings for bpMRI and mpMRI sequences, 6-month interval). Reference standard was histology from RA-TB.

Results

PI-RADS 2 was scored in 5.1% of cases (3.4% cancer/3.4% csPCa), PI-RADS 3 in 16.9% (32.6%/3.2%), PI-RADS 4 in 57.6% (66.1%/58.3%) and PI-RADS 5 in 20.4% of cases (79.1%/74.8%). For mpMRI/bpMRI test comparison, sensitivity was 99.0%/97.1% (p < 0.001), specificity 47.5%/61.2% (p < 0.001), PPV 69.5%/75.1% (p < 0.001) and NPV 97.6%/94.6% (n.s.). csPCa was considered gold standard. 35 cases without cancer were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 (mpMRI) and six PI-RADS 3 cases with csPCa were not upgraded (bpMRI).

Conclusion

In patients planned for RA-TB with elevated PSA and clinical suspicion for PCa, specificity was higher in bpMRI vs. mpMRI, which could solve constrains regarding time and contrast agent.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of short biparametric magnetic resonance imaging protocol in men at risk of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of a short biparametric MRI (BP-MRI) with that of contrast-enhanced multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer in men with elevated prostatespecific antigen (PSA) levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared two diagnostic procedures for detection of prostate cancer (Pca), BP-MRI and MP-MRI, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients. We compared two scenarios in which different protocols would be used for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer in relation to PSA values. Scenario 1. BP-MRI/MP-MRI yearly if > 3.0 ng/ml, every 2 years otherwise; Scenario 2. BP-MRI/MP-MRI yearly with age-dependent threshold 3.5 ng/ml (50-59 years), 4.5 ng/ml (60-69 years), 6.5 ng/ml (70-79 years).

RESULTS

BP-MRI was more effective than the comparator in terms of cost (160.10 € vs 249.99€) QALYs (a mean of 9.12 vs 8.46), ICER (a mean of 232.45) and NMB (a mean of 273.439 vs 251.863). BP-MRI was dominant, being more effective and less expensive, with a lower social cost. Scenario 2 was more cost-effective compared to scenario 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the hypothesis that a short bi-parametric MRI protocol represents a cost-efficient procedure, optimizing resources in a policy perspective.

How MRI is changing prostate cancer management: a focus on early detection and active surveillance: Comment l'IRM est en train de révolutionner la prise en charge du cancer de la prostate : focus sur la détection précoce et la surveillance active

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has witnessed major changes in prostate cancer management. Among these, the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), by allowing the visualisation of the cancerous lesion inside the prostatic gland, opened new management horizons.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the literature published since 2010, focusing on the place of MRI in the early detection, active surveillance and prostate cancer screening settings.

RESULTS

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), interpreted using the PI-RADS scoring system, has allowed a shift from systematic to mpMRI-targeted biopsies, supported by level I evidence. Studies are ongoing to evaluate the role of MRI as a triage and screening tool. The integration of mpMRI has allowed for a better selection of active surveillance candidates, reducing the risk of misclassification. The PRECISE recommendations have been created to assess the likelihood of radiological change over time from the previous or baseline mpMRI scan, and serial mpMRI appears promising to reduce the need for repeat biopsy in active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Growing evidence supports the use of MRI at all stages of the prostate cancer pathway, relying on images of optimal diagnostic quality and experience in prostate MRI reporting and biopsy targeting. © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Current Status of Biparametric MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Literature Analysis

The role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer is well-established. Based on the limited role of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in PI-RADS v2.1, the risk of potential side effects, and the increased cost and time, there has been an increase in studies advocating for the omission of DCE from MRI assessments. Per PI-RADS v2.1, DCE is indicated in the assessment of PI-RADS 3 lesions in the peripheral zone, with its most pronounced effect when T2WI and DWI are of insufficient quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and reporting in the literature from the past 5 years regarding the use of DCE in prostate MRI, especially with respect to the indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1, and to describe the different approaches used across the studies. We searched for studies investigating the use of bpMRI and/or mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer between January 2017 and April 2022 in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Through the search process, a total of 269 studies were gathered and 41 remained after abstract and full-text screening. The following information was extracted from the eligible studies: general clinical and technical characteristics of the studies, the number of PI-RADS 3 lesions, different definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy thresholds, reference standard methods, and number and experience of readers. Forty-one studies were included in the study. Only 51% (21/41) of studies reported the prevalence of csPCa in their equivocal lesion (PI-RADS category 3 lesions) subgroups. Of the included studies, none (0/41) performed a stratified sub-analysis of the DCE benefit versus MRI quality and 46% (19/41) made explicit statements about removing MRI scans based on a range of factors including motion, noise, and image artifacts. Furthermore, the number of studies investigating the role of DCE using readers with varying experience was relatively low. This review demonstrates that a high proportion of the studies investigating whether bpMRI can replace mpMRI did not transparently report information inherent to their study design concerning the key indications of DCE, such as the number of clinically insignificant/significant PI-RADS 3 lesions, nor did they provide any sub-analyses to test image quality, with some removing bad quality MRI scans altogether, or reader-experience-dependency indications for DCE. For the studies that reported on most of the DCE indications, their conclusions about the utility of DCE were heavily definition-dependent (with varying definitions of csPCa and of the PI-RADS category biopsy significance threshold). Reporting the information inherent to the study design and related to the specific indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1 is needed to determine whether DCE is helpful or not. With most of the recent literature being retrospective and not including the data related to DCE indications in particular, the ongoing dispute between bpMRI and mpMRI is likely to linger.

A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer

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.

Feasibility of biology-guided radiotherapy using PSMA-PET to boost to dominant intraprostatic tumour

•

Biology-guided radiation therapy (BGRT) uses PET imaging for online image guidance.

•

PSMA PET uptake is abundant in the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).

•

BgRT boost to PSMA-avid subvolume in the prostate region may be feasible.

•

Suitable targets for BgRT were identified in the ProPSMA clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Abbreviated MR Protocols in Prostate MRI

Prostate MRI is an integral part of the clinical work-up in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer, and its use has been increasing steadily over the last years. To further its general availability and the number of men benefitting from it and to reduce the costs associated with MR, several approaches have been developed to shorten examination times, e.g., by focusing on sequences that provide the most useful information, employing new technological achievements, or improving the workflow in the MR suite. This review highlights these approaches; discusses their implications, advantages, and disadvantages; and serves as a starting point whenever an abbreviated prostate MRI protocol is being considered for implementation in clinical routine.

Noninferiority of Monoparametric MRI Versus Multiparametric MRI for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic Accuracy of ADC Ratios Based on Advanced "Zoomed" Diffusion-Weighted Imaging

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratios as a monoparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) with the established multiparametric (mp) MRI at 3.0 T.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

According to power analysis, 52 male patients were included in this monocenter study with prospective data collection and retrospective, blinded multireader image analysis. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients were recruited from January to December 2020. Based on mpMRI findings, patients underwent in-bore MR biopsy or prostatectomy for histopathologic correlation of suspicious lesions. Three readers, blinded to the histopathologic results and images of mpMRI, independently evaluated ADC maps for the detection of PCa. The ADC ratio was defined as the lowest signal intensity (SI) of lesions divided by the SI of normal tissue in the zone of origin. Predictive accuracy of multiparametric and monoparametric MRI were compared using logistic regression analysis. Moreover, both protocols were compared applying goodness-of-fit analysis with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for continuous ADC ratios and Pearson χ2 test for binary decision calls, correlation analysis with Spearman ρ and intraclass correlation coefficients, as well as noninferiority assessment with a TOST ("two one-sided test").

RESULTS

Eighty-one histopathologically proven, unique PCa lesions (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 3 + 3) in 52 patients could be unequivocally correlated, with 57 clinically significant (cs) PCa lesions (GS ≥ 3 + 4). Multiparametric MRI detected 95%, and monoparametric ADC detected ratios 91% to 93% of csPCa. Noninferiority of monoparametric MRI was confirmed by TOST (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Logistic regression analysis revealed comparable predictive diagnostic accuracy of ADC ratios (73.7%-87.8%) versus mpMRI (72.2%-84.7%). Spearman rank correlation coefficient for PCa aggressiveness revealed satisfactory correlation of ADC ratios (P < 0.013 for all correlations). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the logistic regression analysis for continuous ADC ratios indicated adequate predictive accuracy (P = 0.55-0.87), and the Pearson χ2 test showed satisfactory goodness of fit (P = 0.35-0.69, χ2 = 0.16-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Normalized ADC ratios based on advanced DWI are noninferior to mpMRI at 3.0 T for the detection of csPCa in a preselected patient cohort and proved a fast and accurate assessment tool, thus showing a potential prospect of easing the development of future screening methods for PCa.

Progress in prostate cancer prevention

After lung, prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and fourth in cancer-related mortality. The etiology is largely unknown and no clear risk factors have been identified. Primary prevention is therefore challenging. Also, secondary prevention, screening, in large populations is difficult. Germline mutations are implicated in hereditary prostate cancer, accounting for about 10% of screened men. Currently, only prostate-specific antigen test is adopted for early detection but is considered insufficient to further improve prevention and care. In this opinion article, we discuss novel diagnostic biomarkers and imaging tools, along with more promising targeted prostate biopsies.

Is perfect the enemy of good? Weighing the evidence for biparametric MRI in prostate cancer

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.

One-Day Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Digital Pathology by Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy

In this prospective observational study, we tested the feasibility and efficacy of a novel one-day PCa diagnosis path based on biparametric magnetic resonance (bpMRI) and digital pathology by fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM). Patients aged 55–70 years scheduled for PBx due to increased PSA levels (3–10 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digitorectal examination were enrolled. All patients underwent bpMRI and PBx with immediate FCM evaluation of biopsy cores. Patients were asked to fill out a dedicated Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire. Patients’ satisfaction rates and concordance between digital pathology and standard HE evaluation were the outcomes of interest. Twelve patients completed our one-day PCa diagnosis path. BpMRI showed suspicious lesions in 7 patients. Digital pathology by FCM identified PCa in 5 (41.7%) of the 12 patients. Standard pathology confirmed the diagnosis made through digital pathology in all the cases. At a per patient level, high concordance between the methods was achieved in Gleason Grading (4 out of 5 patients). The level of agreement in the number of positive cores was lower but did not affect the choice of treatment in any of the 5 PCa cases. At a per core level, the agreement was very high for the diagnosis of anyPCa (96.2%) and csPCa (97.3%), with a k coefficient of 0.90 and 0.92, respectively (near perfect agreement). In conclusion, one-day PCa diagnosis by FCM represents a feasible, reliable, and fast diagnostic method that provides significant advantages in optimizing time and resources, leading to patients having a higher quality standard of care perception.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abbreviated Bi-Parametric MRI (a-bpMRI) for Prostate Cancer Detection and Screening: A Multi-Reader Study

(1) Background: There is currently limited evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI (a-bpMRI) protocols for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and screening. In the present study, we aim to investigate the performance of a-bpMRI among multiple readers and its potential application to an imaging-based screening setting. (2) Methods: A total of 151 men who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies were retrospectively selected. Corresponding bpMRI (multiplanar T2WI, DWI, ADC maps) and a-bpMRI (axial T2WI and b 2000 s/mm² DWI only) dataset were derived from mpMRI. Three experienced radiologists scored a-bpMRI, standard biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and mpMRI in separate sessions. Diagnostic accuracy and interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was tested for different positivity thresholds and compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Predictive values of a-bpMRI were computed for lower levels of PCa prevalence to simulate a screening setting. The primary definition of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was Gleason ≥ 4 + 3, or cancer core length ≥ 6 mm. (3) Results: The median age was 62 years, the median PSA was 6.8 ng/mL, and the csPCa prevalence was 40%. Using a cut off of MRI score ≥ 3, the sensitivity and specificity of a-bpMRI were 92% and 48%, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivity compared to bpMRI and mpMRI. Interreader agreement of a-bpMRI was moderate (AC1 0.58). For a low prevalence of csPCa (e.g., <10%), higher cut offs (MRI score ≥ 4) yield a more favourable balance between the predictive values and positivity rate of MRI. (4) Conclusion: Abbreviated bpMRI protocols could match the diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI and mpMRI for the detection of csPCa. If a-bpMRI is used in low-prevalence settings, higher cut-offs for MRI positivity should be prioritised.

Efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with biparametric MRI in diagnosing prostate cancer and predicting risk stratification: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the combined application of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission computed tomography/computed tomography (bpMRI/PET) in the qualitative diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The 105 patients with suspected PCa included in the study underwent bpMRI and PET/CT. BpMRI examinations included conventional sequences and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Major lesions were qualitatively diagnosed according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). A PET/CT scan was started 60 min after intravenous ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 injection. The area with the highest radioactivity on PET/CT images was defined as the major lesion, and the maximum standard uptake value (SUV_max) was measured. All cases were confirmed by biopsy and pathology. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed on the data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index.

RESULTS

Of the 105 patients, 68 patients were diagnosed with PCa, and 37 patients had benign prostatic lesions. With a PI-RADS score ≥3 as the diagnostic threshold, the accuracy of bpMRI in identifying benign and malignant prostate lesions was similar to that of PET/CT (SUV_max threshold ≥10.9), and the Youden indices were 0.60 and 0.64, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI in the differential diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk PCa versus low-risk PCa or benign lesions were 63% and 88%, respectively, and the Youden index was 0.51. With an SUV_max ≥12.9 as the diagnostic threshold, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk PCa versus low-risk PCa or benign lesions were 74% and 94%, respectively, and the Youden index was 0.68. The sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI/PET in diagnosing PCa were 94% and 81%, respectively, and the Youden index was 0.75. The sensitivity and specificity of bpMRI/PET in the differential diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk PCa versus low-risk PCa or benign lesions were 80% and 88%, respectively, and the Youden index was 0.68.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined application of bpMRI and PET improves the accuracy of the qualitative diagnosis of prostate lesions, and its diagnostic efficacy for risk stratification in patients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa is similar to that of PET/CT and higher than that of bpMRI alone.

Deep Learning Reconstruction Enables Highly Accelerated Biparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) can be curative; however, prostate-specific antigen is a suboptimal screening test for clinically significant PCa. While prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has demonstrated value for the diagnosis of PCa, the acquisition time is too long for a first-line screening modality.

PURPOSE

To accelerate prostate MRI exams, utilizing a variational network (VN) for image reconstruction.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

SUBJECTS

One hundred and thirteen subjects (train/val/test: 70/13/30) undergoing prostate MRI.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3.0 T; a T2 turbo spin echo (TSE) T2-weighted image (T2WI) sequence in axial and coronal planes, and axial echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

ASSESSMENT

Four abdominal radiologists evaluated the image quality of VN reconstructions of retrospectively under-sampled biparametric MRIs (bp-MRI), and standard bp-MRI reconstructions for 20 test subjects (studies). The studies included axial and coronal T2WI, DWI B50 seconds/mm² and B1000 seconds/mm (4-fold T2WI, 3-fold DWI), all of which were evaluated separately for image quality on a Likert scale (1: non-diagnostic to 5: excellent quality). In another 10 test subjects, three readers graded lesions on bp-MRI-which additionally included calculated B1500 seconds/mm² , and apparent diffusion coefficient map-according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2.1), for both VN and standard reconstructions. Accuracy of PI-RADS ≥3 for clinically significant cancer was computed. Projected scan time of the retrospectively under-sampled biparametric exam was also computed.

STATISTICAL TESTS

One-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparison of image quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for lesion detection and grading. Generalized estimating equation with cluster effect was used to compare differences between standard and VN bp-MRI. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Three of four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between the standard and VN axial T2WI (Reader 1: 4.00 ± 0.56 (Standard), 3.90 ± 0.64 (VN) P = 0.33; Reader 2: 4.35 ± 0.74 (Standard), 3.80 ± 0.89 (VN) P = 0.003; Reader 3: 4.60 ± 0.50 (Standard), 4.55 ± 0.60 (VN) P = 0.39; Reader 4: 3.65 ± 0.99 (Standard), 3.60 ± 1.00 (VN) P = 0.38). All four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between standard and VN DWI B1000 seconds/mm² (Reader 1: 2.25 ± 0.62 (Standard), 2.45 ± 0.75 (VN) P = 0.96; Reader 2: 3.60 ± 0.92 (Standard), 3.55 ± 0.82 (VN) P = 0.40; Reader 3: 3.85 ± 0.72 (Standard), 3.55 ± 0.89 (VN) P = 0.07; Reader 4: 4.70 ± 0.76 (Standard); 4.60 ± 0.73 (VN) P = 0.17) and three of four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between standard and VN DWI B50 seconds/mm² (Reader 1: 3.20 ± 0.70 (Standard), 3.40 ± 0.75 (VN) P = 0.98; Reader 2: 2.85 ± 0.81 (Standard), 3.00 ± 0.79 (VN) P = 0.93; Reader 3: 4.45 ± 0.72 (Standard), 4.05 ± 0.69 (VN) P = 0.02; Reader 4: 4.50 ± 0.69 (Standard), 4.45 ± 0.76 (VN) P = 0.50). In the lesion evaluation study, there was no significant difference in the number of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions identified on standard vs. VN bp-MRI (P = 0.92, 0.59, 0.87) with similar sensitivity and specificity for clinically significant cancer. The average scan time of the standard clinical biparametric exam was 11.8 minutes, and this was projected to be 3.2 minutes for the accelerated exam.

DATA CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accelerated biparametric prostate MRI exams can be performed using deep learning methods in <4 minutes, potentially enabling rapid screening prostate MRI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Fast T2-Weighted Imaging With Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction: Evaluation of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) can potentially improve image quality by reduction of noise, thereby enabling fast acquisition of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, a systematic evaluation of image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR has rarely been investigated in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE

To assess the image quality and diagnostic performance of MRI using short acquisition time with DLR for the evaluation of extraprostatic extension (EPE).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

One hundred and nine men.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3 T; turbo spin echo T2-weighted images (T2WI), echo-planar diffusion-weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

ASSESSMENT

To compare image quality, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and subjective analysis using Likert scales on three T2WIs (MRI using conventional acquisition time, MRI using short acquisition time [fast MRI], and fast MRI with DLR) were performed. The diagnostic performance for EPE was evaluated by three independent readers.

STATISTICAL TESTS

SNR, CNR, and image quality scores across the three imaging protocols were compared using Friedman tests. The diagnostic performance for EPE was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Fast MRI with DLR demonstrated significantly higher SNR (mean ± SD, 14.7 ± 6.8 vs. 8.8 ± 4.9) and CNR (mean ± SD, 6.5 ± 6.3 vs. 3.4 ± 3.6) values and higher image quality scores (median, 4.0 vs. 3.0 for three readers) than fast MRI. The AUCs for EPE were significantly higher with the use of DLR (0.86 vs. 0.75 for reader 2 and 0.82 vs. 0.73 for reader 3) compared with fast MRI, whereas differences were not significant for reader 1 (0.81 vs. 0.74; P = 0.09).

DATA CONCLUSION

DLR may be useful in reducing the acquisition time of prostate MRI without compromising image quality or diagnostic performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review of Favorite Clinical Applications for Both Field Strengths-Part 1

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in suspected prostate cancer: Correlation of scan results with biopsy findings in a series of 266 patients

Objectives:

This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PCa), and to assess the suitability of a new diagnostic pathway using bpMRI and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) to determine the need for biopsy.

Methods:

A total of 386 patients referred to one UK cancer centre with suspected PCa across 12 months from 2017 to 2018 underwent bpMRI, with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score assigned. Of these, 266 (69%) were biopsied, with 150 CS-PCa (a Gleason score of 7 or a Gleason score of 3 with core length ⩾5 mm) detected: a 57% diagnostic yield. Imaging, PSAd and biopsy results were collated, and a confusion matrix was calculated.

Results:

Twenty-three men with PIRADS 1 were biopsied, with two CS-PCa detected: PSAd M=0.19 ( SD=0.07). Twenty-one men with PIRADS 2 lesions were biopsied, with one CS-PCa detected: PSAd was 0.28. Seventy-five men with PIRADS 3 were biopsied, with 25 CS-PCa detected: PSAd M=0.26 ( SD=0.16). Fifty-seven men with PIRADS 4 were biopsied, with 46 CS-PCa detected: PSAd M=0.26 ( SD=0.16). Ninety men with PIRADS 5 were biopsied, with 83 CS-PCa detected: PSAd M=0.55 ( SD=0.63). Among the 266 biopsied patients, a pathway offering biopsy if PIRADS is ⩾3 or PSAd ⩾0.1 spares 11 (4.2%) biopsies compared to baseline practice, with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 10.1%, for biopsy-detected CS-PCa. The diagnostic yield is 61.8%.

Conclusion:

BpMRI is comparable to multi-parametric MRI for assessing need for biopsy in suspected PCa, albeit with lower specificity. A diagnostic pathway using bpMRI and PSAd can be safely used to avoid biopsy in men at low risk, increasing diagnostic yield of biopsy while reducing overdiagnosis and avoiding the risks and costs associated with gadolinium contrast.

Level of evidence:

Level 4.