Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate

Accuracy of MRI in detecting seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic test accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting seminal vesicle invasion (SVI).

METHODS

The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) and Cochrane databases were search up to May 2023. We included studies that investigated the accuracy of mpMRI in detecting SVI when compared to radical prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers to construct 2 × 2 tables, as well as patient and study characteristics. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Quality of Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled and presented graphically with summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) plots.

RESULTS

A total of 27 articles with 4862 patients were included for analysis. The summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.68) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.99), respectively. Meta-regression indicated that there was no evidence that coil strength (P = 0.079), coil type (P = 0.589), year of publication (P = 0.503) or use of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (P = 0.873) significantly influenced these results. The summary diagnostic odds ratio was 28.3 (95% CI 15.0-48.8) and the area under the curve for the SROC curve was 0.87. The I2 statistic was a modest 11.9%. In general, methodological quality was good.

CONCLUSION

The use of mpMRI in detecting SVI has excellent specificity but poor sensitivity. Both endorectal coils and magnetic field strength do not significantly impact the accuracy of MRI. These findings suggest that mpMRI cannot reliably rule out SVI in patients with prostate cancer.

Comparison of intensity normalization methods in prostate, brain, and breast cancer multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives

Intensity variation in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is a confounding factor in MRI analyses. Previous studies have employed several normalization methods, but there is a lack of consensus on which method results in the most comparable images across vendors and acquisitions. This study used MP-MRI collected from patients with confirmed prostate, brain, or breast cancer to examine common intensity normalization methods to identify which best harmonizes intensity values across cofounds.

Materials and methods

Multiple normalization methods were deployed for intensity comparison between three unique sites, MR vendors, and magnetic field strength. Additionally, we calculated radiomic features before and after intensity normalization to determine how downstream analyses may be affected. Specifically, in the prostate cancer cohort, we tested these methods on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and additionally looked at a subset of patients who were scanned with and without the use of an endorectal coil (ERC). In a cohort of glioblastoma (GBM) patients, we tested these methods in T1 pre- and post-contrast enhancement (T1, T1C), fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Finally, in the breast cancer cohort, we tested methods on T1-weighted nonfat-suppressed images. All methods were compared using a two one-sided test (TOST) to test for equivalence of mean and standard deviation of intensity distributions.

Results

While each organ had unique results, across every tested comparison, using the Z-score of intensity within a mask of the organ consistently provided an equivalent distribution (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that intensity normalization using the Z-score of intensity within prostate, breast, and brain MR images produces the most comparable intensities between sites, MR vendors, magnetic field strength, and prostate endorectal coil usage. Likewise, Z-score normalization provided the highest percentage of radiomic features that were statistically equal across the three organs.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with hip implants-presetting a protocol using a phantom

Background

Metal structures are a source of artifacts that significantly complicate the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The use of prostate MRI as a preliminary test in men with a suspicion on prostate cancer leads to an increased use of the test. The aim of this study was to solve a clinically significant problem: to ensure the reduction of artifacts from metal hip implants during prostate MRI. Another goal was to evaluate the impact of artifact reduction methods on quantitative measurements.

Methods

The prostate gland (PG) phantom model was a cylinder filled with an aqueous solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone at the concentrations of 40%, 30%, and 20% [central zone (CZ), peripheral zone (PZ), and "lesion", respectively]. Phantom MRI study was conducted on Philips Ingenia 1.5T and Philips Ingenia 3T scanners.

Results

For 1.5 T, the reduction in the influence of artifacts inside region of interest (ROI) was observed, expressed in a decrease in the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (CZ, PZ, "lesion") for the manual artifact reduction (MAR) and ZOOM (title of software artifact reduction) techniques compared to the standard method. For 3T this effect was not detected. The same ADC results were obtained for Standard and MAR techniques, and increased ADC values for ZOOM. Despite the fact that the spread of ADC values on 3.0T scanners was minimal, there was a significant deviation of ADC values from the reference ones (up to 30.4%). Therefore, it is necessary to use a correction coefficient in the ADC calculation for the 3.0 T device. In the presented clinical case, high-quality tomograms were obtained without any artifacts, despite the presence of two hip replacement devices in the scanning area.

Conclusions

The accurate prostate MRI in the presence of implants is essential for an accurate diagnosis. This approach allows to reduce artifacts from hip implants, to visualize PG and periprostatic tissue in the best way, and to detect malignant and benign changes.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

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.

T2-Weighted MRI Radiomic Features Predict Prostate Cancer Presence and Eventual Biochemical Recurrence

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most diagnosed non-cutaneous cancer in men. Despite therapies such as radical prostatectomy, which is considered curative, distant metastases may form, resulting in biochemical recurrence (BCR). This study used radiomic features calculated from multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) to evaluate their ability to predict BCR and PCa presence. Data from a total of 279 patients, of which 46 experienced BCR, undergoing MP-MRI prior to surgery were assessed for this study. After surgery, the prostate was sectioned using patient-specific 3D-printed slicing jigs modeled using the T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). Sectioned tissue was stained, digitized, and annotated by a GU-fellowship trained pathologist for cancer presence. Digitized slides and annotations were co-registered to the T2WI and radiomic features were calculated across the whole prostate and cancerous lesions. A tree regression model was fitted to assess the ability of radiomic features to predict BCR, and a tree classification model was fitted with the same radiomic features to classify regions of cancer. We found that 10 radiomic features predicted eventual BCR with an AUC of 0.97 and classified cancer at an accuracy of 89.9%. This study showcases the application of a radiomic feature-based tool to screen for the presence of prostate cancer and assess patient prognosis, as determined by biochemical recurrence.

Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays a vital role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. With the increase in use of mpMRI, obtaining the best possible quality images has become a priority. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was introduced to standardize and optimize patient preparation, scanning techniques, and interpretation. However, the quality of the MRI sequences depends not only on the hardware/software and scanning parameters, but also on patient-related factors. Common patient-related factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, and patient motion. There is currently no consensus regarding the best approaches to address these issues and improve the quality of mpMRI. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS, and this review aims to explore the key strategies which aim to improve prostate MRI quality, such as imaging techniques, patient preparation methods, the new Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) criteria, and artificial intelligence on prostate MRI quality.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Prostate MRI White Paper

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy and the third most common cause of death in Canadian men. In light of evolving diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer and the increased use of MRI, which now includes its use in men prior to biopsy, the Canadian Association of Radiologists established a Prostate MRI Working Group to produce a white paper to provide recommendations on establishing and maintaining a Prostate MRI Programme in the context of the Canadian healthcare system. The recommendations, which are based on available scientific evidence and/or expert consensus, are intended to maintain quality in image acquisition, interpretation, reporting and targeted biopsy to ensure optimal patient care. The paper covers technique, reporting, quality assurance and targeted biopsy considerations and includes appendices detailing suggested reporting templates, quality assessment tools and sample image acquisition protocols relevant to the Canadian healthcare context.

Prostate MRI: Is Endorectal Coil Necessary?—A Review

To assess the necessity of endorectal coil use in 3 Tesla (T) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a literature review comparing the image quality and diagnostic performance with an endorectal coil (ERC) and a without endorectal coil (NERC), with a phased array coil or a wearable perineal coil (WPC), was performed. A PubMed search of 3T prostate MRI using an endorectal coil for studies published until 31 July 2021 was performed. A total of 14 studies comparing 3T prostate MRI with and without endorectal coil use were identified. The quality scores and diagnostic performances were recorded for each study. In total, five studies compared image quality; five studies compared quality and performance; and four studies compared performance of detection, size of detected lesions, accuracy of cancer localization, and aggressiveness/staging. The use of an endorectal coil improved image quality with a higher overall signal to noise ratio, posterior and peripheral zone signal to noise ratio, high b-value attenuation diffusion coefficient (ADC) signal to noise ratio, and contrast to noise ratio. Endorectal coil use improved subjective image quality for anatomic detail on T2 weighted images (T2WI) and diffusion weighted images (DWI). Endorectal coil use had less motion artifact on DWI than non-endorectal coil use, but produced a higher occurrence of other artifacts on DWI. Endorectal coils had higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in the detection of overall and index lesions, as well as smaller and less aggressive lesions, missing fewer and smaller lesions than non-endorectal coils. Endorectal coils had higher sensitivity than non-endorectal coils in localizing and staging lesions. Endorectal coils improved quantitative and qualitative image quality and diagnostic performance in the detection of smaller and less aggressive cancers in 3T prostate MRI.

Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T

Background

To compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients.

Methods

Thirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated.

Results

Twenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter−/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52–0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion.

Conclusion

Despite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7.

A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), enabled by the clinical introduction of the integrated MRI and linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), is a novel technique for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, promising to further improve clinical outcome and reduce toxicity. The role of prostate MRI has been greatly expanded from the traditional PCa diagnosis to also PCa screening, treatment and surveillance. Diagnostic prostate MRI has been relatively familiar in the community, particularly with the development of Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). But, on the other hand, the use of MRI in the emerging clinical practice of PCa MRgRT, which is substantially different from that in PCa diagnosis, has been so far sparsely presented in the medical literature. This review attempts to give a comprehensive overview of MRI acquisition techniques currently used in the clinical workflows of PCa MRgRT, from treatment planning to online treatment guidance, in order to promote MRI practice and research for PCa MRgRT. In particular, the major differences in the MRI acquisition of PCa MRgRT from that of diagnostic prostate MRI are demonstrated and explained. Limitations in the current MRI acquisition for PCa MRgRT are analyzed. The future developments of MRI in the PCa MRgRT are also discussed.

Assessment of Apparent Diffusion Coefficients and SUVs as Predicators of Histological Differentiation in Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

AIM

The study aims to assess minimal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) and SUVmax as predictors of histological differentiation in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) and to determine cutoff values for each histopathological tumor grade.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 41 ASCC patients (14 males, 27 females; mean age, 65 ± 13 years) staged with FDG PET/CT and MRI (mean scan time interval, 21 ± 11 days). SUVmax and ADCmin values were measured and compared with histopathological tumor grading obtained from biopsy.

RESULTS

The mean size and tumor volume were 3 ± 2 cm and 16.5 ± 27.3 cm3, respectively. The mean ADCmin values for well-, moderately, and poorly differentiated ASCC were 935 ± 179, 896 ± 123, and 637 ± 114, respectively. The mean SUVmax for well-, moderately, and poorly differentiated ASCC were 6.9 ± 1.8, 11.5 ± 4.1, and 13.4 ± 2.6, respectively. The difference in mean ADCmin values between poorly and moderately/well-differentiated tumors was statistically significant, whereas this was not significant between moderately and well-differentiated tumors. Differences in SUVmax values were statistically significant between poorly/moderately and well-differentiated tumors, whereas there was no statistical significance between poorly and moderately differentiated tumors. By combining the 2 modalities using cutoff values of 675 × 10-6 mm2·s-1 for ADCmin and 8.5 for SUVmax, it was possible to differentiate the tumor categories with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, respectively, of 84.6%, 96.4%, 91.7%, and 93.1% for well-differentiated ASCC, 76.5%, 87.5%, 81.3%, and 84% for moderately, and 90.9%, 89.3%, 76.9%, and 96.2% for poorly differentiated ASCC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ADCmin and SUVmax values correlated with the degree of differentiation in ASCC and can be used as predictors of tumor grading and aggressiveness. Combined ADCmin and SUVmax cutoff values can therefore be used for early patient risk stratification and treatment decision making.

Consensus on Screening, Diagnosis, and Staging Tools for Prostate Cancer in Developing Countries: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

PURPOSE

To generate and present the survey results on critical issues relevant to screening, diagnosis, and staging tools for prostate cancer (PCa) focused on developing countries.

METHODS

A total of 36 of 300 questions concern the main areas of interest of this paper: (1) screening, (2) diagnosis, and (3) staging for various risk levels of PCa in developing countries. A panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create recommendations for screening, diagnosing, and staging tools for PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript.

RESULTS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time.

CONCLUSION

The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support the screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and staging of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

Challenges in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis from Multiparametric Imaging Data

Simple Summary

Prostate Cancer is one of the main threats to men’s health. Its accurate diagnosis is crucial to properly treat patients depending on the cancer’s level of aggressiveness. Tumor risk-stratification is still a challenging task due to the difficulties met during the reading of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Images. Artificial Intelligence models may help radiologists in staging the aggressiveness of the equivocal lesions, reducing inter-observer variability and evaluation time. However, these algorithms need many high-quality images to work efficiently, bringing up overfitting and lack of standardization and reproducibility as emerging issues to be addressed. This study attempts to illustrate the state of the art of current research of Artificial Intelligence methods to stratify prostate cancer for its clinical significance suggesting how widespread use of public databases could be a possible solution to these issues.

Abstract

Many efforts have been carried out for the standardization of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance (mp-MR) images evaluation to detect Prostate Cancer (PCa), and specifically to differentiate levels of aggressiveness, a crucial aspect for clinical decision-making. Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has contributed noteworthily to this aim. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the European Association of Urology (EAU 2020), the PI-RADS still has limitations mainly due to the moderate inter-reader reproducibility of mp-MRI. In recent years, many aspects in the diagnosis of cancer have taken advantage of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) such as detection, segmentation of organs and/or lesions, and characterization. Here a focus on AI as a potentially important tool for the aim of standardization and reproducibility in the characterization of PCa by mp-MRI is reported. AI includes methods such as Machine Learning and Deep learning techniques that have shown to be successful in classifying mp-MR images, with similar performances obtained by radiologists. Nevertheless, they perform differently depending on the acquisition system and protocol used. Besides, these methods need a large number of samples that cover most of the variability of the lesion aspect and zone to avoid overfitting. The use of publicly available datasets could improve AI performance to achieve a higher level of generalizability, exploiting large numbers of cases and a big range of variability in the images. Here we explore the promise and the advantages, as well as emphasizing the pitfall and the warnings, outlined in some recent studies that attempted to classify clinically significant PCa and indolent lesions using AI methods. Specifically, we focus on the overfitting issue due to the scarcity of data and the lack of standardization and reproducibility in every step of the mp-MR image acquisition and the classifier implementation. In the end, we point out that a solution can be found in the use of publicly available datasets, whose usage has already been promoted by some important initiatives. Our future perspective is that AI models may become reliable tools for clinicians in PCa diagnosis, reducing inter-observer variability and evaluation time.

Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score

There is increasing interest in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer pathway. The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) now advise mpMRI prior to biopsy, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate.The widespread and swift adoption of this technique has led to variability in image quality. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer.This critical review outlines the studies aimed at improving prostate MR quality that have been published over the last 5 years. These span from the use of specific MR sequences, magnets and coils to patient preparation. The rates of adherence of prostate mpMRI to technical standards in different cohorts across the world are also discussed.Finally, we discuss the first standardised scoring system (i.e., Prostate Imaging Quality, PI-QUAL) that has been created to evaluate image quality, although further iterations of this score are expected in the future.

Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer

The use of multiparametric MRI has been hastened under expanding, novel indications for its use in the diagnostic and management pathway of men with prostate cancer. This has helped drive a large body of the literature describing its evolving role over the last decade. Despite this, prostate cancer remains the only solid organ malignancy routinely diagnosed with random sampling. Herein, we summarize the components of multiparametric MRI and interpretation, and present a critical review of the current literature supporting is use in prostate cancer detection, risk stratification, and management.

Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup

PURPOSE

To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC).

METHODS

Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared.

RESULTS

Two readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5-45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5-15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41-46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients' weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Although readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC.

Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil!

The question referred to in the title of this article is a relatively common situation when performing prostate MRI in some healthcare settings. Moreover, the answer is not always straightforward. The decisions on type of receiver coil for prostate MRI and whether or not an endorectal coil (ERC) should be used is based on several factors. These relate to the patient (e.g., body habitus, presence of metallic devices in the pelvis), the focus of the exam (diagnosis, staging, recurrence), and characteristics of the MRI system (e.g., magnetic field strength and hardware components including coil design and number of elements/channels available in the surface coil). Historically, the combined use of an ERC and a surface coil was the optimal combination for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly for low-strength magnetic fields (1.5T). However, there are several disadvantages associated with the use of an ERC, and several studies have advocated equivalent clinical performance of modern MRI systems for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCa), either with ERC or surface alone. Accordingly, there is a wide variation in the precise imaging technique across institutions. This article focuses on the most relevant aspects of the decision of whether to use an ERC for PCa MR imaging.

Can fewer transperineal systematic biopsy cores have the same prostate cancer detection rate as of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy?

BACKGROUND

Due to the discomfort and incidence of complications increases with the increasing number of biopsy cores, the protocol of prostate biopsy has been promoted from systematic biopsy (SB) to targeted biopsy (TB) in many studies. However, the optimal prostate sampling scheme to balance the incidence of biopsy complications and accuracy of biopsy remains controversial. Our objective is to explore an optimal prostate cancer (PCa) sampling scheme with fewer SB cores.

METHODS

Patients with at least one lesion of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ≥3 were prospectively enrolled. TB and SB were performed for each patient as reference. The hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes were TB only, SB only, and TB followed by SB of the nontargeted sector (TB+nSB). The PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates and cores of the three hypothetical biopsy schemes were compared with TB+SB.

RESULTS

Among 165 patients, 107 (64.8%) were diagnosed with PCa and 91 (55.2%) with csPCa via TB+SB. There were 54 (50.5%) and 42 (46.2%) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) true negative cases and 53 (49.5%) and 49 (53.8%) false negative cases of nontargeted sectors among PCa and csPCa patients, respectively. The maximal cancer proportion in positive biopsy cases differed significantly between the true and false groups of these cohorts. There was no difference between TB+nSB and TB+SB for PCa or csPCa detection.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal sampling scheme TB+nSB with fewer SB cores showed same PCa and csPCa detection rates as that of standard TB+SB with MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate is an excellent tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer, and it has widely been incorporated into clinical practice due to its excellent tissue contrast and image resolution. The aims of this article are to describe the prostate MR imaging technique for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer according to PI-RADS v2.1, as well as alternative sequences and basic aspects of patient preparation and MR imaging artifact avoidance.

Design, evaluation and comparison of endorectal coils for hybrid MR-PET imaging of the prostate

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers among men and its early detection is critical for its successful treatment. The use of multimodal imaging, such as MR-PET, is most advantageous as it is able to provide detailed information about the prostate. However, as the human prostate is flexible and can move into different positions under external conditions, it is important to localise the focused region-of-interest using both MRI and PET under identical circumstances. In this work, we designed five commonly used linear and quadrature radiofrequency surface coils suitable for hybrid MR-PET use in endorectal applications. Due to the endorectal design and the shielded PET insert, the outer face of the coils investigated was curved and the region to be imaged was outside the volume of the coil. The tilting angles of the coils were varied with respect to the main magnetic field direction. This was done to approximate the various positions from which the prostate could be imaged. The transmit efficiencies and safety excitation efficiencies from simulations, together with the signal-to-noise ratios from the MR images were calculated and analysed. Overall, it was found that the overlapped loops driven in quadrature were superior to the other types of coils we tested. In order to determine the effect of the different coil designs on PET, transmission scans were carried out, and it was observed that the differences between attenuation maps with and without the coils were negligible. The findings of this work can provide useful guidance for the integration of such coil designs into MR-PET hybrid systems in the future.

Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions

The current diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer has resulted in overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment as well as underdiagnosis and missed diagnoses in many men. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has been identified as a test that could mitigate these diagnostic errors. The performance of mpMRI can vary depending on the population being studied, the execution of the MRI itself, the experience of the radiologist, whether additional biomarkers are considered and whether mpMRI-targeted biopsy is carried out alone or in addition to systematic biopsy. A number of challenges to implementation remain, such as ensuring high-quality execution and reporting of mpMRI and ensuring that this diagnostic pathway is cost-effective. Nevertheless, emerging clinical trial data support the adoption of this technology as part of the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Detectability of prostate cancer in different parts of the gland with 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether the detectability of prostate cancer with 3-Tesla (3T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) differs by tumor location.

METHODS

We identified 136 patients with prostate cancer who underwent 3-T mpMRI before prostatectomy at a single academic center. Two uroradiologists scored all MRIs with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2). A genitourinary pathologist mapped tumor foci from serial whole-mount radical prostatectomy sections. We assessed concordance of images with cancer sites. Tumor foci with Gleason score ≥  3 + 4 or volume ≥ 0.5 mL were considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 122 foci in 106 cases were identified with mpMRI. Twenty-four were PI-RADS 3, 52 were 4, and 46 were 5. A total of 274 tumor foci were identified with whole-mount pathology. The sensitivity stratified by location to detect significant cancer with a PI-RADS cutoff value of 3 was 56.0% overall, 50.0% in the peripheral zone (PZ), 71.2% in the transitional zone (TZ), 62.4% anterior, 49.5% posterior, 42.0% apical, 63.6% in the midgland, and 43.8% in the gland base. In multivariate analysis, tumor location was not a significant predictor of identification by mpMRI. Tumor volume, Gleason score, and index tumor status were significantly associated with identification by mpMRI.

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI detected the majority of high-grade and large cancers, but had low sensitivity in the PZ, posterior, and apex and base of the gland. The high prevalence of low-volume, low-Gleason score index tumors, as well as satellite tumors in those areas, accounted for the difference.

The Evolution of MRI of the Prostate: The Past, the Present, and the Future

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to discuss the evolution of MRI in prostate cancer from the early 1980s to the current day, providing analysis of the key studies on this topic. CONCLUSION. The rapid diffusion of MRI technology has meant that residual variability remains between centers regarding the quality of acquisition and the quality and standardization of reporting.

Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer at 3-T Multiparametric MRI Using PI-RADS Segmentation

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine the overall and sector-based performance of 3-T multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and localization by using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring and segmentation compared with whole-mount histopathologic analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Multiparametric 3-T MRI examinations of 415 consecutive men were compared with thin-section whole-mount histopathologic analysis. A genitourinary radiologist and pathologist collectively determined concordance. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADSv2 categories and sectoral location to all detected foci by consensus. Tumor detection rates were calculated for clinical and pathologic (Gleason score) variables. Both rigid and adjusted sector-matching models were used to account for fixation-related issues. RESULTS. The 415 patients had 863 PCa foci (52.7% had a Gleason score ≥ 7, 61.9% were ≥ 1 cm, and 90.4% (375/415) of index lesions were ≥ 1 cm) and 16,185 prostate sectors. Multiparametric MRI enabled greater detection of PCa lesions 1 cm or larger (all lesions vs index lesions, 61.6% vs 81.6%), lesions with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 (all lesions vs index lesions, 71.4% vs 80.9%), and index lesions with both Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 and size 1 cm or larger (83.3%). Higher sensitivity was obtained for adjusted versus rigid tumor localization for all lesions (56.0% vs 28.5%), index lesions (55.4% vs 34.3%), lesions with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 (55.7% vs 36.0%), and index lesions 1 cm or larger (56.1% vs 35.0%). Multiparametric 3-T MRI had similarly high specificity (96.0-97.9%) for overall and index tumor localization with adjusted and rigid sector-matching approaches. CONCLUSION. Using 3-T multiparametric MRI and PI-RADSv2, we achieved the highest sensitivity (83.3%) for the detection of lesions 1 cm or larger with Gleason score greater than or equal to 7. Sectoral localization of PCa within the prostate was moderate and was better with an adjusted model than with a rigid model.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC).

Materials

This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRI_ERC) and without (mpMRI_PPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard.

Results

On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.

Performance of T2 Maps in the Detection of Prostate Cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study compares the performance of T2 maps in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to T2-weighted (T2W) magnetic resonance images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The prospective study was institutional review board approved. Consenting patients (n = 45) with histologic confirmed PCa underwent preoperative 3-T magnetic resonance imaging with or without endorectal coil. Two radiologists, working independently, marked regions of interests (ROIs) on PCa lesions separately on T2W images and T2 maps. Each ROI was assigned a score of 1-5 based on the confidence in accurately detecting cancer, with 5 being the highest confidence. Subsequently, the histologically confirmed PCa lesions (n = 112) on whole-mount sections were matched with ROIs to calculate sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and radiologist confidence score. Quantitative T2 values of PCa and benign tissue ROIs were measured.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and confidence score for PCa detection were similar for T2W images (51%, 4.5 ± 0.8) and T2 maps (52%, 4.5 ± 0.6). However, PPV was significantly higher (P = .001) for T2 maps (88%) compared to T2W (72%) images. The use of endorectal coils nominally improved sensitivity (T2W: 55 vs 47%, T2 map: 54% vs 48%) compared to the use of no endorectal coils, but not the PPV and the confidence score. Quantitative T2 values for PCa (105 ± 28 milliseconds) were significantly (P = 9.3 × 10^-14) lower than benign peripheral zone tissue (211 ± 71 milliseconds), with moderate significant correlation with Gleason score (ρ = -0.284).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that review of T2 maps by radiologists has similar sensitivity but higher PPV compared to T2W images. Additional quantitative information obtained from T2 maps is helpful in differentiating cancer from normal prostate tissue and determining its aggressiveness.

Prostate cancer detection from multi-institution multiparametric MRIs using deep convolutional neural networks

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate aids in early diagnosis of prostate cancer, but is difficult to interpret and subject to interreader variability. Our objective is to generate probability maps, overlaid on original mpMRI images to help radiologists identify where a cancer is suspected as a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD). We optimized the holistically nested edge detection (HED) deep convolutional neural network. Our dataset contains T2, apparent diffusion coefficient, and high b -value images from 186 patients across six institutions worldwide: 92 with an endorectal coil (ERC) and 94 without. Ground-truth was based on tumor segmentations manually drawn by expert radiologists based on histologic evidence of cancer. The training set consisted of 120 patients and the validation set and test set included 19 and 47, respectively. Slice-level probability maps are evaluated at the lesion level of analysis. The best model: HED using 5 × 5 convolutional kernels, batch normalization, and optimized using Adam. This CAD performed significantly better ( p < 0.001 ) in the peripheral zone ( AUC = 0.94 ± 0.01 ) than the transition zone. It outperforms a previous CAD from our group in a head-to-head comparison on the same ERC-only test cases ( AUC = 0.97 ± 0.01 ; p < 0.001 ). Our CAD establishes a state-of-the-art performance for predicting prostate cancer lesions on mpMRIs.

Evaluation of stacked resonators to enhance the performance of a surface receive-only array for prostate MRI at 3 Tesla

Prostate MRI is an important tool to diagnose and characterize cancer. High local sensitivity and good parallel imaging performance are of paramount importance for diagnostic quality and efficiency. The purpose of this work was to evaluate stacked resonators as part of a surface receiver array for prostate MRI at 3 Tesla. A base array of 6-channels consisting of a flexible anterior and a rigid posterior part were built each with three loop coils. A pair of stacked resonators was added concentrically to the center loops (anterior and posterior) of the base array. The evaluated stacked resonators were butterflies, composites and dipoles which yielded a total of three 8-channel arrays. The arrays were compared using noise correlations and single-channel signal-to-noise ratio maps in a phantom. Combined signal-to-noise ratio maps and parallel imaging performances were measured and compared in vivo in 6 healthy volunteers. The results were compared to the base and a commercial array. The SNR values in the prostate yielded by all the arrays were not statistically different using fully sampled k-space. However, significant differences were found in the parallel imaging performance of the arrays. More specifically, up to 88% geometric factor reduction was found compared to the commercial array and up to 83% reduction compared to the base array using butterfly coils. Thus, signal-to-noise ratio improvements were observed with stacked resonators when using parallel imaging. The use of stacked elements, in particular butterfly coils, can improve the performance of a base array consisting solely of single loops when using parallel imaging. We expect prostate MRI at 3 Tesla to benefit from using combinations of single loops and stacked resonators.

The emerging role of imaging in prostate cancer secondary screening: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the incipient incorporation of molecular imaging

An increasingly robust body of evidence indicates that multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to prostate biopsy can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer while avoiding unnecessary biopsies. As a result, the use of mpMRI and biopsy platforms that allow for the real-time fusion of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasound images is now routinely used in clinical practice. On the horizon, molecular imaging offers the promise of improved sensitivity relative to mpMRI and early data would suggest that the combination of mpMRI and positron emission tomography using radiotracers targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen provide a more accurate assessment than either modality alone. In this review, we examine the current role of imaging to aid in the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Multiparametric (mp) MRI of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prevalent cancers in men. A large number of men are detected with PCa; however, the clinical behavior ranges from low-grade indolent tumors that never develop into a clinically significant disease to aggressive, invasive tumors that may rapidly progress to metastatic disease. The challenges in clinical management of PCa are at levels of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up after treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods have shown a potential role in detection, localization, staging, assessment of aggressiveness, targeting biopsies, etc. in PCa patients. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is emerging as a better option compared to the individual imaging methods used in the evaluation of PCa. There are attempts to improve the reproducibility and reliability of mpMRI by using an objective scoring system proposed in the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) for standardized reporting. Prebiopsy mpMRI may be used to detect PCa in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen or abnormal digital rectal examination and to enable targeted biopsies. mpMRI can also be used to decide on clinical management of patients, for example active surveillance, and may help in detecting only the pathology that requires detection. It can potentially not only guide patient selection for initial and repeat biopsy but also reduce false-negative biopsies. This review presents a description of the MR methods most commonly applied for investigations of prostate. The anatomical, functional and metabolic parameters obtained from these MR methods are discussed with regard to their physical basis and their contribution to mpMRI investigations of PCa.

Comparison of prostate distortion by inflatable and rigid endorectal MRI coils in permanent prostate brachytherapy imaging

PURPOSE

To study the deformation of the prostate by a rigid reusable endorectal coil and a balloon-type endorectal coil (BTC) during MRI of the prostate in brachytherapy imaging.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The prostate gland was contoured on 157 MRI scans from 52 prostate cancer patients undergoing brachytherapy. The curvature of the posterior prostate surface deformation was computed as a measure of prostate distortion and compared between scans with a BTC, rigid endorectal coil (REC), or no endorectal coil. For the nine patients who had MRIs with all three endorectal scenarios, a mean prostate deformation vector was also calculated between scenarios using deformable image registration. These measures of prostate distortion were compared with the prostate anterior-to-posterior to left-to-right ratio (AP/LR) on the largest prostate axial slice.

RESULTS

Significant differences in prostate curvature were found between scans without an endorectal coil versus a REC versus a BTC (p < 0.001). The mean prostate deformation was 3.9 mm due to the BTC and 2.0 mm for the REC (p = 0.012). The mean AP/LR ratio was 0.62 with a BTC versus 0.76 without a coil or 0.73 with a REC (p < 0.001), but no difference existed between scans with a REC versus no coil (p = 0.7). The AP/LR ratio showed moderate correlation with prostate curvature (r = 0.48), and with mean prostate deformation (r = -0.64 to 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

The REC caused minimal deformation of the prostate compared with a BTC with adequate MR image quality, and calculation of the cross-sectional AP/LR ratio on the largest axial prostate slice can serve as a simple measure of prostate distortion.