Imaging Prostate Cancer Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Past, Present, and Future

Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound, Real-Time Sonoelastography, and Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound in Heavily Prescreened Chinese Men With Naive and Repetitive Biopsy: A Comparison of Detection Rate of Prostate Cancer Per Man and Per Lesion

ABSTRACT

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy have been widely accepted as the most accurate technique to detect localize prostate cancer. It is a time-consuming and expensive option and may not be widely available in China, making ultrasound the first choice for the detection of prostate cancer. In this current retrospective study, the diagnostic values of enhanced transrectal ultrasound, contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound, and real-time sonoelastography were evaluated. Symptomatic 315 men older than 40 years with prostate-specific antigen level greater than 4.0 ng/mL, with abnormal digital rectal examinations, and with suspicious lesions for prostate cancer under enhanced transrectal ultrasound included in the study. Enhanced transrectal ultrasound was suspicious in all 315 men, with 189 of 315 men with prostate cancer according to the prostate biopsy report. Sonoelastography was suspicious in 294 of 315 men, with 166 of 315 men with prostate cancer according to the prostate biopsy report. Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound was suspicious in 221 of 315 men, with 159 of 315 men with prostate cancer according to the prostate biopsy report. Real-time sonoelastography alone and contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound alone were missed in 27 (11%) and 39 (15%) lesions to report cancer through biopsies. Working area for enhanced transrectal ultrasound, real-time sonoelastography, and contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound for detection of prostate cancer were 0 to 1 diagnostic confidence, 0.11 to 0.895 diagnostic confidence, and 0.39 to 0.63 diagnostic confidence respectively. Real-time sonoelastography and contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound may improve the detection of prostate cancer in men with suspicious prostate lesions under enhanced transrectal ultrasound (Level of Evidence: III; Technical Efficacy Stage: 2).

Multiparametric MRI-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy in patients without prior diagnosis of prostate cancer: beyond centers of excellence

PURPOSE

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion prostate biopsy (FBx) has demonstrated increased accuracy for prostate cancer detection at designated centers of excellence. There is a concern if their results can be reproduced in smaller centers. Here, we evaluate the outcomes of FBx from a smaller academic center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients without a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer undergoing FBx from January 2014 to November 2019 was performed. Histopathological results were grouped into low-risk disease (Grade Group 1), intermediate-risk disease (Grade Group 2 and 3), and high-risk disease (Grade Group 4 or 5). Clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer was defined as Grade Group ≥ 2.

RESULTS

Five hundred and six men were included. Median age (IQR) and PSA (IQR) were 65.2 (60.3-70.2) years and 6.9 (5.2-9.7) ng/ml, respectively. There was no difference in overall cancer detection between FBx and SBx (53.6% vs 56.4% p = .1507). CS cancer detection was significantly higher with FBx (39.6% vs 35.3, p = .0275). FBx also outperformed SBx in diagnosing CS disease in patients with prior history of negative prostate biopsy (36.9% vs 27.9%, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

FBx detects a higher proportion of clinically significant disease and a lower proportion of clinically insignificant disease compared to SBx, in line with outcomes demonstrated by centers of excellence.

Analyzing the current practice patterns and views among urologists regarding focal therapy for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (CaP) has been shown to have encouraging short-term oncological outcomes, excellent preservation of functional outcomes and is increasing in popularity in urologic community. We aim to evaluate the preferences and practice trends among urologists regarding this treatment strategy.

METHODS

A 20 item online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists' views and use of FT. The survey was sent to the members of the Endourological Society and the American Urological Association. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors for utilization of FT.

RESULTS

A total of 425 responses were received [American Urological Association: 319, Endourological Society: 106]. Mean age of respondents was 53(SD: 11.3) years. Although half of the respondents (50.8%) believed FT to be moderate to extremely beneficial in the treatment of CaP, only 24.2% (103) of the respondents currently utilize FT in their practice. Respondents who were fellowship trained in urologic oncology were more likely to consider FT to be at least moderately beneficial (P < 0.001). Surgeon's experience (greater than 15 years in urology practice) (P = 0.025) and seeing more than 10 patients with new CaP diagnosis per month (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of FT utilization for localized CaP. While the most common setting for utilization of FT was in patients with unilateral intermediate-risk (72.8%) CaP, a small percentage of respondents also used FT for patients with unilateral high-risk CaP and bilateral intermediate risk (21.4% and 10.7%, respectively). Most common reasons for not using FT were the lack of belief in 'index lesion theory' (63.2%), lack of experience (41.3%), lack of belief in FT's efficacy (41.1%), lack of infrastructure (35.8%), difficult salvage treatment in cases of recurrence (22.7%) and high cost (21.8%). About 57.6% would use FT more often in an office or outpatient setting if they had access to reliable and cost-effective options.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a quarter of our respondents utilize FT in their practice with surgeon's experience being the important independent predictor for using FT. Majority of respondents though consider FT to be beneficial in CaP management, would use it more often if provided more reliable and cost-effective options. Over time, experience and accessibility to reliable methods to perform FT may lead to further utilization of this novel treatment strategy.

A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques

Prostate biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic technique for the detection of prostate cancer. Patient selection for prostate biopsy is complex and is influenced by emerging use of prebiopsy imaging. The introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy has clear advantages over the historical standard of care. There are several biopsy techniques currently utilized with unique advantages and disadvantages. We review and summarize the current body of literature pertaining to when and how a prostate biopsy should be performed. We discuss current recommendations regarding patient selection for biopsy and discuss future directions regarding prebiopsy imaging. We offer a description of the MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy technique and a comparison of many of the currently available fusion software platforms. Articles pertaining to the title were obtained via PubMed index search with relevant keywords supplemented with personal collection of related publications. Prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with gross digital rectal exam (DRE) abnormality, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 4 ng/ml, and concomitant risk factors for prostate cancer or patients with lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 2 (PI-RADS2) score of 4 or 5. MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy has demonstrated advantages in cancer detection when compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. There are currently several fusion software platforms available with a variety of biopsy approaches. Future efforts should detail the role of prebiopsy imaging as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. Consensus should be sought regarding the preferred modality of fusion biopsy. Additional data describing each fusion software platform would enable a more rigorous comparison of platform sensitivities.