Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline

Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline

INTRODUCTION

This clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic review to assess the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) for biopsy-naive men and men with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) at elevated risk.

METHODS

The methods of the clinical practice guideline included searches to September of 2020 of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Internal and external reviews were conducted.

RESULTS

The recommendations are:Recommendation 1: For biopsy-naive patients at elevated risk of csPCa, mpMRI is recommended prior to biopsy in patients who are candidates for curative management with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.- If the mpMRI is positive, mpMRI-targeted biopsy (TB) and TRUS-SB should be performed together to maximize detection of csPCa.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing any biopsy after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 2: In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-SB and demonstrate a high risk of having csPCa in whom curative management is being considered:- mpMRI should be performed.- If the mpMRI is positive, targeted biopsy should be performed. Concomitant TRUS-SB can be considered depending on the patient's risk profile and time since prior TRUS-SB biopsy.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing a TRUS-SB only after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 3: mpMRI should be performed and interpreted in compliance with the current Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines.

Rational design of ZnO@ZIF-8 nanoarrays for improved electrochemical detection of H2O2

Core–shell ZnO@ZIF-8 nanoarrays demonstrate remarkable electrochemical performance for detection of H2O2.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to report the clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate in men undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS)-cognitive fusion (CF) targeted biopsies stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) scores.

METHODS

With a quality assurance waiver from the IRB, we identified a cohort of men who underwent MRI-TRUS-CF and synchronous template biopsy from 2015-2017. MRI (PI-RADS v2 score, lesion size, lesion location [peripheral or transition zone (PZ/TZ)]), and CF-TRUS biopsy (operator experience, TRUS visibility, and number of biopsies) features were extracted. The primary outcome was diagnosis of clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4=7 or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2) PCa.

RESULTS

During the study period, 131 men (with 142 PIRADS v2 score ≥3 lesions) met inclusion criteria; 98 men had previously negative template biopsy and 33 were on active surveillance for previously detected low-grade PCa. In total, 41.9% (55/131) men had clinically significant PCa - 17.6% (23/131) detected on targeted biopsy only, 8.4% (11/131) on template biopsy only, and 16.0% (21/131) on both targeted and template biopsy. Clinically significant PCa detection stratified by PI-RADS v2 scores were: 11.1% (3/27) for score 3 (indeterminate), 42.9% (24/56) for score 4 (significant cancer likely), and 35.6% (21/59) for score 5 (significant cancer very likely). Clinically significant PCa detection rates in targeted biopsies were better among PZ (41.8% [33/79]) compared to TZ (23.8% [15/63]) lesions (p=0.025) in TRUS visible lesions (p=0.033) and in the most experienced radiologists (p=0.05), with no difference by lesion size or number of additional core biopsies performed (all p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive fusion MRI-TRUS-guided targeted biopsy yielded substantially lower rates of clinically significant cancer in PI-RADS v2 score 4 and 5 lesions when compared to published results using in-bore MR-guided or automated MRI-TRUS fusion guidance systems. Cancer detection was worst for TZ lesions.

A narrative review and update on management following negative prostate biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed using systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. However, given the inherent nature of sampling, a negative biopsy does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and continued controversy exists in the optimal management following initial biopsy. Numerous avenues for evaluation include multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), use of molecular biomarkers, repeat biopsy, and observation.

RECENT FINDINGS

mpMRI has shown promise in guiding further biopsy management: for individuals with identified target lesions, increased accuracy and detection using combination targeted and systematic sampling has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature as an effective strategy. For those with negative MRIs and/or negative biomarker (blood, urinary, tissue) studies, increasing evidence has suggested that these individuals may be able to avoid biopsy altogether, albeit at a small risk of missing csPCa. Observation should be based on an individual's risk of csPCa versus their competing health risks, and saturation biopsy reserved for rare cases with high clinical suspicion.

SUMMARY

Management following an initial negative prostate biopsy requires careful discussion with the patient, their risk tolerance, and threshold for intervention. Although subject to availability, mpMRI and molecular biomarkers may better risk stratify patients, identify target lesions, and in certain cases, spare biopsy altogether.

Case - Foamy, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: A false positive for prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging?

The introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate, and specifically the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), has significantly impacted the diagnosis of prostate cancer and the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Indeed, its localizing ability has now opened up opportunities to target focal lesions in partial gland ablation therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. With negative predictive rates of mpMRI approaching 90% in certain series,1 mpMRI has the ability to discriminate between clinically significant intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer and low-risk indolent disease. However, false positives can occur. In recent studies, lesions observed on MRI were classified as tumour on targeted biopsy in 47.6% to over 94% for tumours larger than 0.5 ml in volume.2,3 Herein, we present a case of a rare non-cancer, but putatively pre-malignant prostatic histology that was found on biopsies directed at a category 5 Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) v2 lesion.

Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: Systematic and/or magnetic-resonance imaging-targeted

INTRODUCTION

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being more widely used in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), particularly after an initial negative biopsy. In this study, we compared 12-core systematic biopsy (SYS), MRI-targeted biopsy (TAR), and the association of systematic and MRI-targeted (SYS+TAR) prostate biopsy in patients with previous biopsy and those who were biopsy-naive to evaluate the differences in terms of cancer detection and clinically significant cancer detection between the three modalities.

METHODS

Overall, 203 consecutive patients with suspicion of PCa were analyzed; 48.2% were biopsy-naive and 51.7% had at least one previous negative prostate biopsy. The median age was 66 years, median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.9 ng/mL and median prostate volume was 46 mL. 38.9% had SYS, 19.2% TAR only, and 41.8% had SYS+TAR biopsy.

RESULTS

Overall, the PCa detection (PCaDR) was 63%. The SYS+TAR biopsy detected significantly more cancer than SYS and TAR only biopsies (72.9% vs. 56.9% and 53.8% respectively; p=0.03). Detection rate of clinically significant cancer (csPCaDR) was 50.7% overall; 65.8% in the SYS+TAR biopsy vs. 39.2% in the SYS and 48.7% in the TAR groups (p=0.002). In the biopsy-naive group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were significantly higher in the SYS+TAR group than in the SYS and TAR groups (p=0.01). In the repeat biopsy group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were equivalent in the TAR and SYS+TAR groups and higher than in the SYS group (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAR biopsy, when added to SYS biopsy, was associated with a higher detection rate of csPCa in biopsy-naive patients when compared to TAR and SYS only biopsies. In patients after previous negative biopsy, detection rates of csPCa were equivalent for SYS+TAR and TAR only biopsies, but higher than SYS.