Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol

VISION: An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomised Trials Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy with Standard Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The PRECISION and PRECISE trials compared magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (MRI ± TB) with the standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). PRECISION demonstrated superiority of MRI ± TB over TRUS guided biopsy, while PRECISE demonstrated noninferiority. The VISION study is a planned individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing MRI ± TB with TRUS guided biopsy for csPCa diagnosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central of Registered Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on the November 12, 2023 for randomised controlled trials of biopsy-naïve patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing MRI or standard TRUS. Studies were included if its participants with suspicious MRI underwent targeted biopsy alone and those with nonsuspicious lesion avoided biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men diagnosed with csPCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Two studies, PRECISION and PRECISE (953 patients), were included in the IPDMA. In the MRI ± TB arm, 32.2% of patients avoided biopsy due to nonsuspicious MRI. MRI ± TB detected 8.7 percentage points (36.3% vs 27.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-14.6, p = 0.004) more csPCa than TRUS biopsy and 12.3 percentage points (9.6% vs 21.9%; 95% CI 7.8-16.9, p < 0.001) less clinically insignificant prostate cancer (cisPCa; Gleason 3 + 3). The overall risk of bias for the included studies were found to be low after assessment using the QUADAS-2, QUADAS-C, and ROB 2.0 tools.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The MRI ± TB pathway is superior to TRUS biopsy in detecting csPCa and avoiding the diagnosis of cisPCa. MRI should be included in the standard of care pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Artificial Intelligence in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Time for a New PARADIGM

Artificial intelligence (AI) may provide a solution for improving access to expert, timely, and accurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation. The PARADIGM trial will provide level 1 evidence on the role of AI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer on MRI.

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detecting unconventional prostate cancer histology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Accurate detection of unconventional histologies (UH) in prostate cancer (PCa) is crucial for treatment planning and prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting UH on prostatectomy, particularly cribriform architecture (CA) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P), in patients with localized PCa.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in major databases for studies published after 2000. Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were eligible for qualitative analysis. Five studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) cutoff 3) to detect cribriform architecture were 0.91 and 0.29. The proportion of cribriform lesions increased with higher PI-RADS scores (23.2% for PI-RADS 1-2 to 66.7% for PI-RADS 5). For intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P), two studies found that IDC-P lesions were visible on mpMRI and had lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values compared to acinar prostate cancer. Four studies evaluating combined CA/IDC-P found sensitivities ranging from 33 to 100%. Lower ADC values were associated with CA/IDC-P in some studies, but not in others. Overall, mpMRI demonstrated promising sensitivity but moderate specificity in detecting these aggressive histological variants, with continued challenges in accurate sampling and characterization of mpMRI.

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI shows high sensitivity but moderate specificity in detecting cribriform architecture in PCa, especially for high PI-RADS scores. These findings support the use of mpMRI for UH detection, but caution is advised in clinical interpretation. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these results before routine clinical application. We studied how effective MRI is at identifying different UH of PCa, such as cribriform architecture and intraductal carcinoma. MRI is accurate at detecting these cancers when they are present, but it also produces a significant number of false positives. More research is needed to standardize imaging protocols and histological definition and ensure an accurate diagnosis.

KEY POINTS

Question The accurate detection of unconventional histologies in prostate cancer, particularly cribriform architecture and intraductal carcinoma, is challenging but crucial for treatment planning and prognosis. Findings mpMRI shows high sensitivity (91%) but low specificity (29%) for detecting cribriform architecture, with detection rates increasing proportionally with higher PI-RADS scores. Clinical relevance mpMRI can effectively detect aggressive unconventional histologies in prostate cancer, though its moderate specificity suggests the need for careful interpretation. This aids in risk stratification and treatment planning, potentially improving patient outcomes.

Assessment of a Polygenic Risk Score in Screening for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of prostate cancer is increasing. Screening with an assay of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has a high rate for false positive results. Genomewide association studies have identified common germline variants in persons with prostate cancer, which can be used to calculate a polygenic risk score associated with risk of prostate cancer.

METHODS

We recruited persons 55 to 69 years of age from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, we derived polygenic risk scores from 130 variants known to be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Participants with a polygenic risk score in the 90th percentile or higher were invited to undergo prostate cancer screening with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy, irrespective of PSA level.

RESULTS

Among 40,292 persons invited to participate, 8953 (22.2%) expressed interest in participating and 6393 had their polygenic risk score calculated; 745 (11.7%) had a polygenic risk score in the 90th percentile or higher and were invited to undergo screening. Of these 745 participants, 468 (62.8%) underwent MRI and prostate biopsy; prostate cancer was detected in 187 participants (40.0%). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range, 57 to 73). Of the 187 participants with cancer, 103 (55.1%) had prostate cancer classified as intermediate or higher risk according to the 2024 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria, so treatment was indicated; cancer would not have been detected in 74 (71.8%) of these participants according to the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway currently used in the United Kingdom (high PSA level and positive MRI results). In addition, 40 of the participants with cancer (21.4%) had disease classified as unfavorable intermediate risk or as high or very high risk according to NCCN criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prostate cancer screening program involving participants in the top decile of risk as determined by a polygenic risk score, the percentage found to have clinically significant disease was higher than the percentage that would have been identified with the use of PSA or MRI. (Funded by the European Research Council Seventh Framework Program and others; BARCODE1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03857477.).

MRI characteristics predict risk of pathological upgrade in patients with ISUP grade group 1 prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyse multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) characteristics of patients diagnosed with ISUP grade group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PC) on initial target plus systematic MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy and investigate histopathological progression during follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre cohort analysis was conducted on consecutive patients with mpMRI visible lesions (PI-RADS ≥ 3) and detection of ISUP-1-PC at the time of initial biopsy. The study assessed clinical, mpMRI, and histopathological parameters. Subcohorts were analysed with (1) patients who had confirmed ISUP-1-PC and (2) patients who experienced histopathological upgrading to ISUP ≥ 2 PC during follow-up either at re-biopsy or radical prostatectomy (RP).

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (median age 65 years) between March 2014 and August 2021 were included. Histopathological upgrading to ISUP ≥ 2 was detected in 55% of patients during a median follow-up of 9.5 months (IQR 2.2-16.4). When comparing subgroups with an ISUP upgrade and sustained ISUP 1 PC, they differed significantly in contact length of the index lesion to the pseudocapsule, ADC value, PI-RADS category, and the MRI grading group (mGG) (p < 0.05). In the ISUP GG ≥ 2 subgroup, 91% of men had PI-RADS category 4 or 5 and 82% exhibited the highest mGG (mGG3). In multivariate analysis, mGG was the only independent parameter for predicting ISUP ≥ 2-PC in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI reveals important information about PC aggressiveness and should be incorporated into clinical decision-making when ISUP-1-PC is diagnosed. In cases of specific MRI characteristics adverse to the histopathology, early re-biopsy might be considered.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In cases with clear MRI characteristics for clinically significant prostate cancer (e.g., mGG 3 and/or PI-RADS 5, cT3, or clear focal PI-RADS 4 lesions on MRI) and ISUP GG 1 PC diagnosed on initial prostate biopsy, MRI findings should be incorporated into clinical decision-making and early re-biopsy (e.g., within 6 months) might be considered.

KEY POINTS

MRI reveals important information about prostate cancer (PC) aggressiveness. MRI should be incorporated into clinical decision-making when ISUP GG 1 PC is diagnosed on initial prostate biopsy. In cases of specific MRI characteristics adverse to the histopathology, early re-biopsy might be considered.

Measuring and improving the cradle-to-grave environmental performance of urological procedures

An urgent need for societal transformation exists to reduce the environmental impact of humanity, because environmental health affects human health. Health care causes ~5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and other substantial and ongoing environmental harms. Thus, health-care professionals and managers must lead ongoing efforts to improve the environmental performance of health systems. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that enables estimation of environmental impacts of products and processes. It models environmental effects from 'cradle' (raw material extraction) to 'grave' (end of useful life) and conventionally reports a range of different impact categories. LCA is a valuable tool when used appropriately. Maximizing its utility requires rational assumptions alongside careful consideration of system boundaries and data sources. Well-executed LCAs are detailed and transparently reported, enabling findings to be adapted or generalized to different settings. Attention should be given to modelling mitigation solutions in LCAs. This important step can guide health-care systems towards new and innovative solutions that embed progress towards international climate agreements. Many urological conditions are common, recurrent or chronic, requiring resource-intensive management with large associated environmental impacts. LCAs in urology have predominantly focussed on greenhouse gas emissions and have enabled identification of modifiable 'hotspots' including electricity use, travel, single-use items, irrigation, reprocessing and waste incineration. However, the methodological and reporting quality of published urology LCAs generally requires improvement and standardization. Health-care evaluation and commissioning frameworks that value LCA findings alongside clinical outcomes and cost could accelerate sustainable innovations. Rapid implementation strategies for known environmentally sustainable solutions are also needed.

Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK.

METHODS

On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.

Carbon footprints in the urologic field: From diagnosis to surgery

Climate change and its effects on society represent an increasingly critical concern. The healthcare industry contributes substantially to carbon emissions and bears responsibility for managing its environmental impact. This review examines recent progress, challenges, and future prospects in reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic urology without compromising patient care, with particular emphasis on imaging. We analyze the environmental effects of urological procedures and devices, along with practices that can minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including examination of sterilization-related carbon footprints. This work aims to analyze existing literature on urological carbon footprints, focusing on processes and practices within the field.

Correlation of Prostate High-Resolution Microultrasound With Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVE

To assess the correlation between high-resolution microultrasound (microUS) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) lesion identification.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of 267 consecutive patients who underwent MP-MRI and transperineal microUS-guided biopsy between February 2021 and April 2023. The Prostate Risk Identification using MicroUS (PRI-MUS) protocol was utilized to risk stratify prostate lesions, with PRI-MUS 3-5 defined as positive. MRI lesions were classified according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1. Clinicopathologic outcomes were analyzed. Spearman correlation testing was computed to assess the relationship between PRI-MUS and PI-RADS.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean±standard deviation age was 65.6±1.5years and prostate-specific antigen was 7.6±0.6ng/mL. Ninety-two patients were found to have PIRADS 3-5 lesions. Spearman correlation analysis revealed a moderate positive correlation between PRI-MUS and PI-RADS (r=0.40, P<.001). MicroUS-targeted cores detected higher grade disease than systematic and MRI-targeted cores in 8/161 (5.0%) patients. CsPCa would have been missed in 4/161 (2.5%) patients without microUS-targeted sampling.

CONCLUSION

MicroUS/PRI-MUS demonstrates moderate positive correlation with MP-MRI/PI-RADS and offers improved csPCa detection compared to MRI-targeted biopsy alone. MicroUS may be useful in conjunction with MP-MRI or as an alternative imaging modality in MRI-ineligible patients.

Comparative diagnostic performance of VI-RADS based on biparametric and multiparametric MRI in predicting muscle invasion in bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) performed well in diagnosing muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, certain cases may present challenges in determining the final VI-RADS score using only T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences, especially in the absence of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging. This study aims to evaluates whether biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) achieve comparable diagnostic performance to mp-MRI for predicting MIBC and seeks to identify the most suitable bp-MRI criterion by establishing four specific conditions based on T2WI and DWI.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 447 patients who underwent preoperative mp-MRI. Images were evaluated according to the VI-RADS protocol by three independent readers. In the bp-DWI and bp-DWI Plus criteria, DWI was the primary sequence used for lesion assessment, while T2WI was the primary sequence for bp-T2WI and bp-T2WI Plus criteria. The Plus criteria (bp-DWI Plus and bp-T2WI Plus) assigned a final VI-RADS score of 4 when both T2WI and DWI scores were 3. The gold standard for diagnosis was histopathological evaluation after surgery. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by comparing the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and inter-reader agreement using Cohen's kappa analysis.

RESULTS

Among 447 patients, 304 confirmed as NMIBC and 143 as MIBC. The kappa values were 0.876, 0.873, 0.873, 0.642, and 0.642 for mp-MRI, bp-DWI, bp-DWI Plus, bp-T2WI, and bp-T2WI Plus, respectively, when VI-RADS cutoff > 2. Similarly, when cutoff > 3, the kappa values were 0.848, 0.811, 0.873, 0.811, and 0.873. No significant differences were observed between mp-MRI and bp-DWI (AUC: 0.916 vs. 0.912, p = 0.498), but mp-MRI and bp-DWI had higher AUCs compared to bp-DWI Plus, bp-T2WI, and bp-T2WI Plus.

CONCLUSIONS

Both mp-MRI and bp-DWI demonstrate excellent performance in predicting MIBC, with bp-DWI being an alternative to mp-MRI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

retrospectively.

Evaluating biparametric MRI for diagnosing muscle-invasive bladder cancer with variant urothelial histology: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) based on multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) demonstrated excellent performance in diagnosing muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in cases of pure urothelial carcinoma. However, the performance of VI-RADS based on mp-MRI and biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) in diagnosing urothelial carcinoma with variant histology (VUC) remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the applicability of VI-RADS using mp-MRI and bp-MRI in diagnosing MIBC in patients with VUC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 86 patients with VUC from different medical centers. Each patient underwent mp-MRI, with images evaluated using VI-RADS scores. The acquired images were divided into two groups: the mp-MRI group and the bp-MRI group. The mp-MRI group was evaluated according to the VI-RADS protocol. For the bp-MRI group, two VI-RADS scoring criteria were established: bp-DWI, primarily driven by DWI, and bp-T2WI, primarily driven by T2WI. The bp-MRI group was evaluated based on these two criteria. Inter-reader agreement performance was evaluated using Kappa analysis. The evaluation methods were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve. Comparison of the area under the curve (AUC) was performed used DeLong's test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Inter-reader agreement was high across all evaluation methods, with Kappa values exceeding 0.80. The AUCs for mp-MRI, bp-DWI, and bp-T2WI were 0.934, 0.885, and 0.932, respectively. The diagnostic performance of bp-T2WI was comparable with that of mp-MRI (p = 0.682) and significantly higher than bp-DWI (p = 0.007). Both mp-MRI and bp-T2WI demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

VI-RADS based on mp-MRI demonstrates good diagnostic performance for MIBC in VUC patients. bp-T2WI may provide comparable diagnostic performance to mp-MRI.

New Prostate MRI Scoring Systems (PI-QUAL, PRECISE, PI-RR, and PI-FAB): AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), interpreted using PI-RADS, improves the initial detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate MR image quality has increasingly recognized relevance to the use of mpMRI for prostate cancer diagnosis. Additionally, mpMRI is increasingly used in scenarios beyond initial detection, including active surveillance and assessment for local recurrence after prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or focal therapy. In acknowledgment of these evolving demands, specialized prostate MRI scoring systems beyond PI-RADS have emerged to address distinct scenarios and unmet needs. Examples include Prostate Imaging Quality (PIQUAL) for assessment of image quality of mpMRI, Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations for evaluation of serial mpMRI examinations during active surveillance, Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system for assessment for local recurrence after prostatectomy or radiation therapy, and Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) for assessment for local recurrence after focal therapy. These systems' development and early uptake signal a compelling shift toward prostate MRI standardization in different scenarios, and ongoing research will help refine their roles in practice. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review critically examines these new prostate MRI scoring systems (PI-QUAL, PRECISE, PI-RR, and PI-FAB), analyzing the available evidence, delineating current limitations, and proposing solutions for improvement.

Evaluating Biparametric Versus Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: An International, Paired, Noninferiority, Confirmatory Observer Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis.

METHODS

An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3-5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0-100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819-0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826-0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8-92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8-93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes.

Evaluation of the current status, significance, and availability of prostate MRI und MRI guided biopsy in Germany

Evaluation of the current status, significance and availability of multiparametric prostate MRI and MRI-guided biopsy in Germany.A voluntary web-based questionnaire with 26 distinct items was emailed to members of the German Radiological Society (DRG) and the Professional Association of German Radiologists (BDR). The questions referred to personal qualification, acquisition, quality, and management of prostate MRI, and assessment of the importance of the method.In total 182 questionnaires were captured from all 10 german postal regions (over 60% of the university hospitals, almost 50% of the maximum care hospitals and approx. 12% of the practices or medical service centers). 43% of the respondents had a Q1 or Q2 quality certificate from the DRG, 10% had a certificate from the BDR, respectively. The majority (90%) criticized inadequate reimbursement of the examination. In 47% MRI cases were discussed in an interdisciplinary tumor board, in 44% case discussions happened rarely, and 12% never had interdisciplinary discussions. On a scale from 0-100 (0%: low; 100%: high) the estimation of the clinical relevance of prostate MRIs received an average of 84% (± 16%) and the estimated approval by urologists was 75% (± 21%). Lacking clinical feedback (59%) and clinical information (42%) were perceived as the largest problems.In this representative survey the respondents estimated multiparametric MRI of the prostate as highly diagnostic and relevant with an increased approval by urologists. There is still a perceived need for continuous professional education of the method for urologists and for more widespread coverage of fusion biopsy. Prostate MRI is currently primarily offered by high volume centers. Current challenges are particularly insufficient interdisciplinary communication and inadequate reimbursement. · Prostate MRI is perceived as highly diagnostic and clinically relevant.The method is currently primarily offered by high volume centers.. · Bigger current problems are insufficient interdisciplinary communication (e.g., clinical information, biopsy results) and inadequate reimbursement.. · Continuous education for urologists and expanded coverage by fusion biopsy are desirable.. · Ullrich T, Boschheidgen M, Schweyen CM et al. Evaluation of the current status, significance, and availability of prostate MRI und MRI guided biopsy in germany. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2416-1343.

Advanced Restriction Imaging and Reconstruction Technology for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ART-Pro): A Study Protocol for a Multicenter, Multinational Trial Evaluating Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Advanced, Quantitative Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is strongly recommended by current clinical guidelines for improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, the major limitations are the need for intravenous (IV) contrast and dependence on reader expertise. Efforts to address these issues include use of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and advanced, quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. One such advanced technique is the Restriction Spectrum Imaging restriction score (RSIrs), an imaging biomarker that has been shown to improve quantitative accuracy of patient-level csPCa detection. Advanced Restriction imaging and reconstruction Technology for Prostate MRI (ART-Pro) is a multisite, multinational trial that aims to evaluate whether IV contrast can be avoided in the setting of standardized, state-of-the-art image acquisition, with or without addition of RSIrs. Additionally, RSIrs will be evaluated as a stand-alone, quantitative, objective biomarker. ART-Pro will be conducted in two stages and will include a total of 500 patients referred for multiparametric prostate MRI with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer at the participating sites. ART-Pro-1 will evaluate bpMRI, mpMRI, and RSIrs on the accuracy of expert radiologists' detection of csPCa and will evaluate RSIrs as a stand-alone, quantitative, objective biomarker. ART-Pro-2 will evaluate the same MRI techniques on the accuracy of nonexpert radiologists' detection of csPCa, and findings will be evaluated against the expertly created dataset from ART-Pro-1. The primary endpoint is to evaluate whether bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI among expert (ART-Pro-1) and nonexpert (ART-Pro-2) radiologists for the detection of grade group ≥2 csPCa. This trial is registered in the US National Library of Medicine Trial Registry (NCT number: NCT06579417) at ClinicalTrials.gov. Patient accrual at the first site (UC San Diego) began in December 2023. Initial results are anticipated by the end of 2026.

[Early detection of prostate cancer-individualized, risk-adapted and successful]

BACKGROUND

Population-based screening for prostate cancer (PC) is still controversially discussed. Furthermore, an organized, risk-adapted screening program is already being called for across Europe. Although large randomized controlled trials have shown that prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening can significantly reduce PC-specific mortality, all known screening strategies still frequently lead to overdiagnosis and consecutively to overtreatment of clinically insignificant PC.

OBJECTIVE

This review article presents the current evidence regarding PC screening.

RESULTS

The current German early detection program, which is based on the annually recommended digital rectal examination (DRE), lacks specificity and sensitivity. In Germany, an opportunistic PSA screening is currently being carried out, which is no longer recommended due to an unfavorable benefit-risk ratio. Since 2022, the European Commission has been calling for the development of organized, risk-adapted screening strategies that combine the PSA test with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The integration of MRI improves the detection of clinically relevant PC and reduces the overdiagnosis of low-risk cancers. In the future, an algorithm for early detection of PC needs to be developed, which, in an organized and personalized screening, combines the PSA test with MRI and possibly genetic markers.

CONCLUSION

The early detection of prostate cancer should be organized at the population level and integrated into personalized, evidence-based screening strategies.

Strategies for improving image quality in prostate MRI

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the cornerstone in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), offering superior detection capabilities while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Despite its critical role, global disparities in MRI diagnostic performance persist, stemming from variations in image quality and radiologist expertise. This manuscript reviews the challenges and strategies for enhancing image quality in prostate MRI, spanning patient preparation, MRI unit optimization, and radiology team engagement. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are pivotal, emphasizing standardized protocols, meticulous patient evaluation, MRI unit workflow, and radiology team performance. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) advancements offer promising avenues for improving image quality and reducing acquisition times. The Prostate-Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system emerges as a valuable tool for assessing MRI image quality. A comprehensive approach addressing technical, procedural, and interpretative aspects is essential to ensure consistent and reliable prostate MRI outcomes.

Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance?

Active surveillance (AS) is a conservative management option recommended for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and selected cases with intermediate-risk PCa. The adoption of prostate MRI in the primary diagnostic setting has sparked interest in its application during AS. This review aims to examine the role and performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) across the entire AS pathway, from initial stratification to follow-up, also relative to the utilization of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria. Given the high negative predictive value of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa), robust evidence supports its use in patient selection and risk stratification at the time of diagnosis or confirmatory biopsy. However, conflicting results have been observed when using MRI in evaluating disease progression during follow-up. Key areas requiring clarification include addressing the clinical significance of MRI-negative csPCa, optimizing MRI quality, determining the role of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) or mpMRI protocols, and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for improved performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays an essential role in the selection, stratification, and follow up of patients in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. However, owing to existing limitations, it cannot fully replace biopsies in the context of AS. KEY POINTS: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become a crucial tool in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Conflicting results have been observed regarding multiparametric MRI efficacy in assessing disease progression. Standardizing MRI-guided protocols will be critical in addressing current limitations in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

The Value of Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics

Background and objective Prostate cancer (PCA) is the most prevalent cancer among males. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends referral to PCA diagnostic pathway based on two criteria: (1) abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and (2) elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA). This study evaluates the diagnostic value of routine DRE in patients undergoing PCA assessment with pre-biopsy MRI. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 436 patients on the PCA diagnostic pathway between September 2019 and June 2020, focusing on those with normal MRI [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-2, n=147] and documented DRE results. Patients were categorised by their DRE status: normal vs. abnormal. The detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC, i.e., Gleason score ≥7) was then compared between the two groups.  Results The overall PCA detection rate was 10.2%, while it was 4.67% for CSPC. PCA and CSPC detection were higher with abnormal DRE (19.35% and 6.45% respectively) compared to normal DRE (7.76% and 4.31%). Among 23 patients biopsied, 65% (n=15) had PCA, with CSPC found in 30% (n=7). Of note, 61% (n=14) of biopsied patients had normal DRE, with nine PCA cases, five being CSPC, whereas 39% (n=9) with abnormal DRE had six PCA cases, two being CSPC. Statistical analysis using McNemar's test showed no significant association between DRE and PCA diagnosis (p=0.146) or CSPC (p=0.774). Even though abnormal DRE was associated with higher PCA and CSPC detection rates, this finding was not statistically significant. Conclusions Based on our findings, PCA diagnostics can be effectively performed without DRE. This finding is pertinent when performing remote PCA diagnostic consultations, and it reevaluates DRE's value within the diagnostic pathway while emphasising a PSA- and MRI-based approach.

Concordance Between the Expert Reading of Biparametric-MRI and the Nonexpert Multiparametric-MRI for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Clinical Implications

PURPOSE

Prostate-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation is challenging, with expertise playing a crucial role. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) is gaining popularity in experienced centers due to its time and cost advantages over multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). We aim to analyze concordance between nonexpert radiologist PI-RADS from mpMRI and expert radiologist PI-RADS from bpMRI, and its clinical implications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

222 men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa) and mpMRI reported by nonexpert radiologists were referred to a reference center for transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy where an expert radiologist reported bpMRI PI-RADS 2.1 and segmentation, blinded to external mpMRI. Mapping targeted suspected lesions and 12-core systematic biopsies were performed. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was diagnosed when ISUP-grade group was ≥2.

RESULTS

Concordance between both PI-RADS existed in 49.1% of cases (Kappa index 0.288). In 102 cases (45.9%), expert reclassification to lower PI-RADS existed, while an increase existed in 11 cases (5.0%), P < .001. Agreement existed in 30.8% of nonexpert PI-RADS 3, 43.6% of PI-RADS 4, and 83.7% of PI-RADS 5, P < .001. Potential clinical implications included 27% reduction in prostate biopsies when using expert bpMRI readings compared to nonexpert mpMRI readings (P < 0.001), while undetected csPCa were 4.2% and 3.4%, respectively, P = .669. Over-detection reduction of insignificant PCa was 29.4% and 0%, respectively, P = .034.

CONCLUSIONS

Concordance between nonexpert PI-RADS mpMRI and expert PI-RADS bpMRI was low, increasing with nonexpert PI-RADS. Expert reclassification would reduce prostate biopsies by more than one quarter and over-detection of iPCa, while csPCa detection remained similar.

Advanced Imaging for Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer is a prevalent malignancy often presenting without early symptoms. Advanced imaging technologies have revolutionized its diagnosis and management. This review discusses the principles, benefits, and clinical applications of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), micro-ultrasound (microUS), and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) in localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of recent studies and guidelines on mpMRI, microUS, and PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer diagnosis, focusing on their applications in biopsy-naïve patients, those with previous negative biopsies, and patients under active surveillance.

RESULTS

MpMRI has demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive value in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). MicroUS, a newer technology, has shown promising results in early studies, with sensitivity and specificity comparable to mpMRI. PSMA PET/CT has emerged as a highly sensitive and specific imaging modality, particularly valuable for staging and detecting metastatic disease. All three technologies have been incorporated into urologic practice for prostate cancer diagnosis and management, with each offering unique advantages in different clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced imaging techniques, including mpMRI, microUS, and PSMA PET/CT, have significantly improved the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, and management. These technologies enable more precise targeting of suspicious lesions during biopsy and therapy planning. However, further research, especially randomized controlled trials, is needed to fully establish the optimal use and inclusion of these imaging modalities in various stages of prostate cancer care.

The Diagnostic Value of bpMRI in Prostate Cancer: Benefits and Limitations Compared to mpMRI

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and a leading cause of death worldwide. Early detection is vital, as it often presents with vague symptoms such as nocturia and poor urinary stream. Diagnostic tools like PSA tests, ultrasound, PET-CT, and mpMRI are essential for prostate cancer management. The PI-RADS system helps assess malignancy risk based on imaging. While mpMRI, which includes T1, T2, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE), is the standard, bpMRI offers a contrast-free alternative using only T2 and DWI. This reduces costs, acquisition time, and the risk of contrast-related side effects but has limitations in detecting higher-risk PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. This study compared bpMRI's diagnostic accuracy to mpMRI, focusing on prostate volume and PI-RADS scoring. Both methods showed strong inter-rater agreement for prostate volume (ICC 0.9963), confirming bpMRI's reliability in this aspect. However, mpMRI detected more complex conditions, such as periprostatic fat infiltration and iliac lymphadenopathy, which bpMRI missed. While bpMRI offers advantages like reduced cost and no contrast use, it is less effective for higher-risk lesions, making mpMRI more comprehensive.

Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.

Footprints in the scan: reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic tools in urology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an ever-growing focus on climate change and its impact on our society. With healthcare contributing a sizeable proportion of carbon emissions, the sector has a duty to address its environmental impact. We highlight the recent progress, current challenges, and future prospects for reducing the carbon footprint in diagnostic urology, specifically for imaging, without compromising patient care.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review is separated into four key areas of recent research: the design of a green radiology department, considering both infrastructural as well as behavioural changes that promote sustainability; individual scanners, where we provide an update on recent technological advancements and changes in behaviour that may enhance sustainable use; responsible resource allocation, where it is important to derive the maximal benefit for patients through the smallest use of resources; the recent research regarding single versus reusable urologic endoscopes as a case example.

SUMMARY

We offer an overview of the present sustainability landscape in diagnostic urology with the aim of encouraging additional research in areas where existing practices may be challenged. To protect the environment, attention is drawn to both more simple steps that can be taken as well as some more complex and expensive ones.

Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Multiparametric MRI, Biparametric MRI, and Clinical Parameters

INTRODUCTION

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is gold standard for the primary diagnostic work-up of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of the perfusion sequence and the non-inferiority of an MRI without contrast administration (bpMRI) compared to mpMRI while taking clinical parameters into account.

METHODS

In this retrospective, non-interventional study we examined MRI data from 355 biopsy-naïve patients, performed on a 3T MRI system, evaluated by a board-certified radiologist with over 10 years of experience with subsequent mpMRI-TRUS fusion biopsy.

DISCUSSION

Only 16/355 (4.5%) patients benefited from dynamic contrast enhanced. In only 3/355 (0.8%) patients, csPCa would have been missed in bpMRI. BpMRI provided sensitivity and specificity (81.4%; 79.4%) comparable to mpMRI (75.2%; 81.8%). Additionally, bpMRI and mpMRI were independent predictors for the presence of csPCa, individually (OR: 15.36; p < 0.001 vs. 12.15; p = 0.006) and after accounting for established influencing factors (OR: 12.81; p < 0.001 vs. 6.50; p = 0.012). When clinical parameters were considered, a more balanced diagnostic performance between sensitivity and specificity was found for mpMRI and bpMRI. Overall, PSA density showed the highest diagnostic performance (area under the curve = 0.81) for the detection of csPCa.

CONCLUSION

The premise of the study was confirmed. Therefore, bpMRI should be adopted as soon as existing limitations have been lifted by prospective multi-reader studies.

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.

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.

Comparison of Positive Predictive Values of Biparametric MRI and Multiparametric MRI-directed Transrectal US-guided Targeted Prostate Biopsy

Background Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) of the prostate is an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), with lower cost and increased accessibility. Studies investigating the positive predictive value (PPV) of bpMRI-directed compared with mpMRI-directed targeted biopsy are lacking in the literature. Purpose To compare the PPVs of bpMRI-directed and mpMRI-directed targeted prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated men who underwent bpMRI-directed or mpMRI-directed transrectal US (TRUS)-guided targeted prostate biopsy at a single institution from January 2015 to December 2022. The PPVs for any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) were calculated for bpMRI and mpMRI using mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Results A total of 1538 patients (mean age, 67 years ± 8 [SD]) with 1860 lesions underwent bpMRI-directed (55%, 849 of 1538) or mpMRI-directed (45%, 689 of 1538) prostate biopsy. When adjusted for the number of lesions and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, there was no difference in PPVs for any PCa or clinically significant PCa (P = .61 and .97, respectively) with bpMRI-directed (55% [95% CI: 51, 59] and 34% [95% CI: 30, 38], respectively) or mpMRI-directed (56% [95% CI: 52, 61] and 34% [95% CI: 30, 39], respectively) TRUS-guided targeted biopsy. PPVs for any PCa and clinically significant PCa stratified according to clinical indication were as follows: biopsy-naive men, 64% (95% CI: 59, 69) and 43% (95% CI: 39, 48) for bpMRI, 67% (95% CI: 59, 75) and 51% (95% CI: 43, 59) for mpMRI (P = .65 and .26, respectively); and active surveillance, 59% (95% CI: 49, 69) and 30% (95% CI: 22, 39) for bpMRI, 73% (95% CI: 65, 89) and 38% (95% CI: 31, 47) for mpMRI (P = .04 and .23, respectively). Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in PPV for clinically significant PCa between bpMRI- and mpMRI-directed TRUS-guided targeted biopsy. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Autonomous Tumor Signature Extraction Applied to Spatially Registered Bi-Parametric MRI to Predict Prostate Tumor Aggressiveness: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Accurate, reliable, non-invasive assessment of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer is essential for proper disease management. Quantitative assessment of multi-parametric MRI, such as through artificial intelligence or spectral/statistical approaches, can provide a non-invasive objective determination of the prostate tumor aggressiveness without side effects or potential poor sampling from needle biopsy or overdiagnosis from prostate serum antigen measurements. To simplify and expedite prostate tumor evaluation, this study examined the efficacy of autonomously extracting tumor spectral signatures for spectral/statistical algorithms for spatially registered bi-parametric MRI.

METHODS

Spatially registered hypercubes were digitally constructed by resizing, translating, and cropping from the image sequences (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC), High B-value, T2) from 42 consecutive patients in the bi-parametric MRI PI-CAI dataset. Prostate cancer blobs exceeded a threshold applied to the registered set from normalizing the registered set into an image that maximizes High B-value, but minimizes the ADC and T2 images, appearing "green" in the color composite. Clinically significant blobs were selected based on size, average normalized green value, sliding window statistics within a blob, and position within the hypercube. The center of mass and maximized sliding window statistics within the blobs identified voxels associated with tumor signatures. We used correlation coefficients (R) and p-values, to evaluate the linear regression fits of the z-score and SCR (with processed covariance matrix) to tumor aggressiveness, as well as Area Under the Curves (AUC) for Receiver Operator Curves (ROC) from logistic probability fits to clinically significant prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The highest R (R > 0.45), AUC (>0.90), and lowest p-values (<0.01) were achieved using z-score and modified registration applied to the covariance matrix and tumor signatures selected from the "greenest" parts from the selected blob.

CONCLUSIONS

The first autonomous tumor signature applied to spatially registered bi-parametric MRI shows promise for determining prostate tumor aggressiveness.

Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent decades, there has been an increasing role for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update and outline future directions for the role of MRI in the detection of csPC.

RECENT FINDINGS

In diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer pre-biopsy, advances include our understanding of MRI-targeted biopsy, the role of biparametric MRI (non-contrast) and changing indications, for example the role of MRI in screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, the role of MRI in identifying csPC is maturing, with emphasis on standardization of MRI reporting in active surveillance (PRECISE), clinical staging (EPE grading, MET-RADS-P) and recurrent disease (PI-RR, PI-FAB). Future directions of prostate MRI in detecting csPC include quality improvement, artificial intelligence and radiomics, positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI and MRI-directed therapy.

SUMMARY

The utility of MRI in detecting csPC has been demonstrated in many clinical scenarios, initially from simply diagnosing csPC pre-biopsy, now to screening, active surveillance, clinical staging, and detection of recurrent disease. Continued efforts should be undertaken not only to emphasize the reporting of prostate MRI quality, but to standardize reporting according to the appropriate clinical setting.

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.

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.

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.

Inter-reader variability and reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in a multicentre setting

PURPOSE

To assess the inter-reader reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score between readers with varying clinical experience and its reproducibility at assessing imaging quality between different institutions.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we assessed 60 consecutive prostate MRI scans performed at different academic teaching and non-academic hospitals uploaded to our institutes' PACS for second opinion or discussion in case conferences. Anonymized scans were independently reviewed using the PI-QUAL scoring sheet by three readers - two radiologists (with 1 and 12 years Prostate MRI reporting experience), and an experienced MRI technician with interest in image acquisition and quality. All readers were blinded to the site where scans were acquired.

RESULTS

Agreement coefficients between the 3 readers in paired comparison for each individual PI-QUAL score was moderate. When the scans were clustered into 2 groups according to their ability to rule in or rule out clinically significant prostate cancer [i.e., PI-QUAL score 1-3 vs PI-QUAL score 4-5], the Gwet AC1 coefficients between the three readers in paired comparison was good to very good [Gwet AC 1:0.77, 0.67, 0.836 respectively] with agreement percentage of 88.3%, 83.3% and 91.7% respectively. Agreement coefficient was higher between the experienced radiologist and the experienced MRI technician than between the less experienced trainee radiologist and the other two readers. The mean PI-QUAL score provided by each reader for the scans was significantly higher in the academic hospitals (n = 32) compared to the community hospital (n = 28) [experienced radiologist 4.6 vs 2.9; trainee radiologist 4.5 vs 2.4; experienced technologist 4.4 vs 2.4; p value < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

We observed good to very good reproducibility in the assessment of each MRI sequence and when scans were clustered into two groups [PI-QUAL 1-3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5] between readers with varying clinical experience. However, the reproducibility for each single PI-QUAL score between readers was moderate. Better definitions for each PI-QUAL score criteria may further improve reproducibility between readers. Additionally, the mean PI-QUAL score provided by all three readers was significantly higher for scans performed at academic teaching hospitals compared to community hospital.

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate

Background High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Purpose To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. Materials and Methods In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. Results In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. Conclusion Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04571840 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Almansour and Chernyak in this issue.