Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS)

Background

The current recommendation of using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) to diagnose prostate cancer misses clinically significant (CS) cancers. More sensitive biopsies (eg, template prostate mapping biopsy [TPMB]) are too resource intensive for routine use, and there is little evidence on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI).

Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study

Background

There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer.

Combination of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Extended Prostate Biopsy Predicts Lobes Without Significant Cancer: Application in Patient Selection for Hemiablative Focal Therapy

Background

Significant cancer in contralateral sides of the prostate that was missed on prostate biopsy (PBx) is a concern in hemiablative focal therapy (FT) of prostate cancer (PCa). However, extended PBx, a common diagnostic procedure, has a limited predictive ability for lobes without significant cancer.

Objective

To identify prostate lobes without significant cancer using extended PBx combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), which has the potential to provide pathophysiologic information on pretreatment assessment.

Design, setting, and participants

We conducted a prebiopsy DWI study between 2007 and 2012 that included 270 prostate lobes in 135 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinically localized PCa.

Intervention

Participants underwent DWI and 14-core PBx; those with PBx-proven PCa and who were treated with RP were analyzed.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Imaging and pathology were assessed in each side. Based on RP pathology, lobes were classified into lobes with no cancer (LNC), lobes with indolent cancer (LIC), and lobes with significant cancer (LSC). Predictive performance of DWI, PBx, and their combination in identifying lobes without significant cancer was examined.

Results and limitations

LNC, LIC, and LSC were identified in 23 (8.5%), 64 (23.7%), and 183 sides (67.8%), respectively. The negative predictive values (NPV) of DWI, PBx, and their combination were 22.1%, 27.8%, and 43.5%, respectively, for lobes with any cancer (ie, either LIC or LSC), and 68.4%, 72.2%, and 95.7%, respectively, for LSC. The NPV of PBx for LSC was improved by the addition of DWI findings (p = 0.001), with no adverse influence on the positive predictive value. Limitations included a possible selection bias under which the decision to perform PBx might be affected by DWI findings.

Conclusions

The combination of DWI and extended PBx efficiently predicts lobes without significant cancer. This procedure is applicable to patient selection for hemiablative FT.     

The Effect of Prior Biopsy Scheme on Prostate Cancer Detection for Repeat Biopsy Population: Results of the 14-core Prostate Biopsy Technique

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 14-core repeat biopsy protocol and the impact of prior biopsy scheme on repeat prostate biopsy group. METHODS: 211 patients had repeat biopsy using 14-core protocol consisting of 10-core peripheral zone (classical sextant+4 lateral peripheral cores) and 4-core transitional zone (TZ) biopsies. The diagnostic yield was determined both in patients who had previously undergone sextant or 10-core biopsy protocol. RESULTS: Overall cancer detection rate was 25.6%. 14-core biopsy technique detected cancer in 36.1 and 18.7% of the patients who had a previous sextant biopsy and 10-core biopsy protocol, respectively (P = 0.005). Patients with and without high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) in the previous sextant biopsy had 56.5 and 28.3% cancer detection rates on the subsequent extended biopsy, respectively (P = 0.017) Patients who had previous 10-core biopsy with and without HGPIN revealed 22.9 and 17.2% cancer detection rates, respectively (P = 0.465) Additional four lateral peripheral cores detected 33% (3/30) and 17% (4/24) of cancers in patients with previous sextant and 10-core biopsy, respectively. 3.7% of the patients had tumor only in the TZ and none of them had prior extended biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of extended 14-core repeat biopsy protocol was higher in patients with previous negative sextant biopsy compared to the patients with previous negative 10-core biopsy. HGPIN history found on previous sextant biopsy was a strong cancer predictor on repeat biopsy; same was not true for the patients with previous 10-core biopsy. The yield of lateral peripheral cores and TZ biopsies were lower in patients with prior negative extended biopsy.     

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging,with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy,and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ContextMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI pathway), is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision making.ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests MRI only, MRI-targeted biopsy, MRI pathway, and systematic biopsy, as compared with template-guided biopsy (reference standard), in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade 2 or higher, in biopsy-naive men or those with a prior-negative biopsy (or mix of both).Evidence acquisitionWe systematically searched the literature and considered for inclusion any cross-sectional study if it investigated (1) one or more index tests verified by the reference standard, and (2) paired testing of the MRI pathway with systematic biopsy. Quality and certainty of evidence were assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively.Evidence synthesisAccuracy analyses: Using a baseline cancer prevalence of 30%, MRI pathway (sensitivity 0.72 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.60–0.82]; specificity 0.96 [0.94–0.98]; eight studies) may result in 216 (180–246) true positives, 28 (14–42) false positives, 672 (658–686) true negatives, and 84 (54–120) false negatives per 1000 men. Systematic biopsy (sensitivity 0.63 [0.19–0.93]; specificity 1.00 [0.91–1.00]; four studies) may result in 189 (57–279) true positives, 0 (0–63) false positives, 700 (637–700) true negatives, and 111 (21–243) false negatives per 1000 men. Agreement analyses: With a direct comparison of the MRI pathway with systematic biopsy concerning significant disease, we found pooled detection ratios of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95–1.16; 20 studies) in biopsy-naive men and 1.44 (1.19–1.75; 10 studies) in men with a prior-negative biopsy. Concerning insignificant disease, we found detection ratios of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54–0.74), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44–0.88), respectively.ConclusionsMRI pathway had the most favourable outcome in significant and insignificant prostate cancer detection compared with systematic biopsy. The certainty in our findings was reduced by study limitations.Patient summaryWe reviewed recent advances in prostate biopsy by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance and targeting for prostate cancer detection in comparison with standard diagnosis by systematic biopsies. The findings of this Cochrane review suggest that MRI pathway is better than systematic biopsies in making a correct diagnosis of clinically important prostate cancer and reducing redundant biopsies and the detection of unimportant cancers substantially. However, MRI pathway still misses some men with important prostate cancer. Therefore, further research in this area is important.     

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 3: Targeted Biopsy

BackgroundAfter a lesion has been assessed adequately on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB) is the logical next step. The choice of the MRGB technique, however, is difficult.ObjectiveTo show the advantages and disadvantages of the three commonly used MRGB techniques—MRI-ultrasound fusion MRGB (fus-MRGB), direct in-bore MRGB (inbore-MRGB), and cognitive MRGB (cog-MRGB), and to determine when each of the techniques can be used.Design, setting, and participantsBased on expert opinion and literature overview, the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of fus-MRGB, inbore-MRGB, and cog-MRGB are evaluated. Further, the clinical setting of each biopsy strategy is assessed.Surgical procedureBased on expert opinion and literature data, the three biopsy procedures are evaluated, and the important pros and cons are determined.MeasurementsThe basic concept of each biopsy technique is reviewed, which would result in a clinical recommendation. This will be shown in individual patients.Results and limitationsThe accompanying video shows how fus-MRGB and inbore-MRGB are performed in our hospital. An important advantage of fus-MRGB is its generally availability; however, it has fusion-error limitations. Although not supported by evidence, inbore-MRGB seems to be better suited for smaller lesions, but is rather expensive. Cog-MRGB is easy to use and inexpensive, but is more operator dependent as it requires knowledge about both ultrasound and MR images. Readers should be aware that our MRGB approach is largely based on expert opinion and, where possible, supported by evidence.ConclusionsThis article and the accompanying video show different MRGB techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of the three biopsy techniques, as well as the clinical setting in which each biopsy strategy is being used in our hospital, are discussed. Fus-MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. Direct inbore-MRGB is used in difficult lesions but is mainly used as a “problem solver” (eg, a negative biopsy with a high suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer). In our opinion, cog-MRGB is best for sampling larger and diffuse lesions.Patient summaryThis third surgery in motion contribution shows our approach in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB). Fusion MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. In-bore MRGB is used in selected, difficult cases, mainly as a problem solver. In our point of view, cognitive MRGB seems to be best for sampling larger lesions and diffuse processes.     

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer

Context

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI emerged as promising tests in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and they show encouraging results.

Objective

This review emphasizes different functional MRI techniques in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and includes information about their clinical value and usefulness.

Evidence acquisition

The authors searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in October 2008.

Evidence synthesis

The combination of conventional MRI with functional MRI techniques is more reliable for differentiating benign and malignant prostate tissues than any other diagnostic procedure. At present, no guideline is available that outlines which technique is best in a specific clinical situation. It also remains uncertain whether improved spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of 3-T MRI will improve diagnostic performance.

Conclusions

A limited number of small studies suggest that functional MRI may improve the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies, and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.     

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Detects Unsuspected Disease in Patients With Invasive Lobular Cancer

Background: Predicting the extent of disease in the breasts of patients with invasive lobular cancer (ILC) can be difficult because of the limits of physical examination and standard imaging. We determined the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in finding otherwise unsuspected cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast of patients with ILC.Methods: Through database review of all breast MRIs performed between January 1, 1999, and December 30, 2002, we identified patients with newly diagnosed ILC who underwent an MRI for extent-of-disease evaluation or contralateral screening. MRI findings separate from the primary tumor were biopsied and correlated with pathology by using MRI-guided biopsy.Results: Sixty-two patients were identified. In all, 59 ipsilateral and 57 contralateral studies were performed. Suspicious lesions separate from the primary tumor were found by MRI in 38 (61%) of 62 patients. Eight patients were excluded from further analysis (seven elected mastectomy without biopsy; one had an unguided excision). Nineteen of 51 patients with an ipsilateral finding underwent MRI-guided biopsy, which revealed cancer in 11, or 22% of those imaged. Twenty of 53 patients with a contralateral finding underwent MRI-guided biopsy, which revealed cancer in 5, or 9% of those imaged.Conclusions: MRI of the breast identifies unsuspected multicentric or contralateral cancer in patients with ILC. These findings support the use of MRI in selected patients with ILC, particularly in the ipsilateral breast.     

Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) protocols rely on rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, imaging, and biopsy to identify disease progression.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether an AS regimen based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical stage changes can detect reclassification to grade group (GG) ≥2 disease compared with scheduled systematic biopsies.Design, setting, and participantsWe identified a cohort of men initiated on AS between January 2013 and April 2016 at a single tertiary-care center. Patients completed confirmatory testing and prostate MRI prior to enrollment, then underwent laboratory and physical evaluation every 6 mo, MRI every 18 mo, and biopsy every 3 yr.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisMRI results were evaluated using composite Likert/Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 scoring. MRI and clinical changes were assessed for association with disease progression. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to predict upgrading on 3-yr biopsy.Results and limitationsAt 3 yr, of 207 men, 66 (32%) had ≥ GG2 at biopsy: 55 (83%) with GG2, 10 (15%) with GG3, and one (1.5%) with GG4. Among patients with a 3-yr MRI score of ≥3, 41% had ≥ GG2 disease, compared with 15% with an MRI score of <3 (p = 0.0002). The MRI score increased in 48 men (23%), decreased in 27 (13%), and was unchanged in 132 (64%) men. Increases in MRI score were not associated with reclassification after adjusting for the 3-yr MRI score (p = 0.9). Biopsying only for an increased MRI score or clinical stage would avoid 681 biopsies per 1000 men, at the cost of missing ≥GG2 disease in 169 patients.ConclusionsAn AS strategy that uses MRI or clinical changes to trigger prostate biopsy avoids many biopsies but misses an unacceptable amount of clinically significant disease. Prostate biopsy for men on AS should be performed at scheduled intervals, regardless of stable imaging or examination findings.Patient summaryAn active surveillance strategy for biopsy based only on increases in magnetic resonance imaging score or clinical stage will avoid many biopsies; however, it will miss many patients with clinically significant prostate cancer.     

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition

BackgroundAcquiring multiparametric magnetic resonance images of the prostate is not a simple “push-button” approach.ObjectiveTo show how image acquisition of prostate multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) can be optimized.Design, setting, and participantsImage protocols, magnetic field strength choice, and the use of receiver coils are discussed. In addition, patient preparation and the recognition, prevention, and mitigation of artifacts are evaluated.Surgical procedureBased on expert prostate MRI technologists (MRI radiographers) opinion, the optimal protocol is reviewed, and potential artifacts are determined.MeasurementsThe entire acquisition process is presented from initial patient preparation until the end of the imaging. The choice of the used equipment, pulse sequences, and prevention of patient- and imaging-related artifacts are presented. This will be shown in individual patients.Results and limitationsAlthough the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System guidelines (2012 and 2016) describe minimal and optimal acquisition protocols for prostate mpMRI, these standards are not always met in daily practice. A major challenge in mpMRI is to obtain high image quality and reduce its variability for radiologic interpretations. A summary of evidence and guidelines for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate can set a basic guideline to reduce these variabilities.ConclusionsThis article and an accompanying video can be used as a guide by MRI technologists (MRI radiographers) to improve their image acquisitions by optimizing protocols, magnetic field strength choice, and use of receiver coils. We also discuss patient preparation and the recognition, prevention, and mitigation of artifacts.Patient summaryIn this first surgery-in-motion contribution, we will show how optimized image acquisition is performed to detect prostate cancer. Both MRI-dependent and patient related factors are discussed.     

Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been tested for detecting bone metastasis and has shown promising results. Yet, consensus has not been reached regarding whether it can replace the role of bone scintigraphy in this clinical setting or not.

磁共振波谱成像在胰腺癌诊断中的应用进展

目的总结磁共振波谱成像的原理及其在胰腺癌诊断及鉴别诊断的应用进展。方法收集并复习国内外最新相关文献。结果磁共振波谱成像是利用磁共振现象及化学位移现象来检测物质分子组成的一种技术,临床及科研中常用的波谱包括。^1H、^31P和。^23Na的波谱分析。结论磁共振波谱成像作为目前唯一能够无创性定性定量提供活体内生化信息的方法,对胰腺癌诊断及鉴别诊断具有重要意义。     

A Novel Nomogram to Identify Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Among Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Diagnosed with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Biopsies

Background

Available models for predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) might not be applicable to men diagnosed via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies.

Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators

Background

The Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC-RCs) help to avoid unnecessary transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies (TRUS-Bx). Multivariable risk stratification could also avoid unnecessary biopsies following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

Detection of Individual Prostate Cancer Foci via Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) undoubtedly affects the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer (CaP). However, clinicians need a better understanding of its accuracy and limitations in detecting individual CaP foci to optimize management.

Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scoring System for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Cohort of Repeat Biopsy Patients

Background

Wide variations in acquisition protocols and the lack of robust diagnostic criteria make magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection of prostate cancer (PCa) one of the most challenging fields in radiology and urology.

Objective

To validate the recently proposed European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) scoring system for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate.

Design, setting, and participants

An institutional review board–approved multicentric prospective study; 129 consecutive patients (1514 cores) referred for mpMRI after at least one set of negative biopsies.

Intervention

Transfer of mpMRI-suspicious areas on three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound images by 3D elastic surface registration; random systematic and targeted cores followed by core-by-core analysis of pathology and mpMRI characteristics of the core locations. The ESUR scores were assigned after the procedure on annotated Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine archives.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Relationships between ESUR scores and biopsy results were assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The Yates correction and Pearson χ² tests evaluated the association between categorical variables. A teaching set was randomly drawn to construct the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ESUR score sum (ESUR-S). The threshold to recommend biopsy was obtained from the Youden J statistics and tested in the remaining validation set in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy.

Results and limitations

Higher T2-weighted, dynamic weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced ESUR scores were observed in areas yielding cancer-positive cores. The proportion of positive cores increased with the ESUR-S aggregated in five increments (ESUR-S 3–5: 2.9%; ESUR-S 6–8: 11.1%; ESUR-S 9–10: 38.2%; ESUR-S 11–12: 63.4%; and ESUR-S 13–15: 83.3%; p < 0.0001). A threshold of ESUR-S ≥9 exhibited the following characteristics: sensitivity: 73.5%; specificity: 81.5%; positive predictive value: 38.2%; negative predictive value: 95.2%; and accuracy: 80.4%. Although the study was not designed to compare repeat biopsy strategies, more targeted cores than random systematic cores were found to be positive for cancer (36.3% compared with 4.9%, p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

In the challenging situation of repeat biopsies, the ESUR scoring system was shown to provide clinically relevant stratification of the risk of showing PCa in a given location.     

Vector Prostate Biopsy: A Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image Fusion Transperineal Biopsy Technique Using Electromagnetic Needle Tracking Under Local Anaesthesia

BackgroundProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now standard for assessment of suspected prostate cancer (PCa). A variety of approaches to MRI-based targeting has revolutionised prostate biopsies.ObjectiveTo describe the procedure and show the accuracy and tolerability of a novel Vector MRI/ultrasound fusion transperineal (TP) biopsy technique that uses electromagnetic (EM) needle tracking under local anaesthesia (LA).Design, setting, and participantsVector prostate biopsy using BiopSee fusion software, EM tracking technology, and transrectal ultrasound was performed in 69 patients meeting the biopsy criteria in two UK centres between September 2020 and August 2022.Surgical procedureStepper-mounted rectal ultrasound images were fused with MRI scans. LA was applied into two defined perineal tracks and a needle sheath with an EM sensor was inserted. The biopsy needle was directed precisely through the sheath to MRI targets under EM tracking. Biopsies were taken without antibiotic prophylaxis.MeasurementsCancer detection (any PCa; grade group ≥2), side effects, and patient experience measures were recorded.Results and limitationsCancer detection in patients with Likert 4–5 lesions was 98% for any PCa and 83% for grade group ≥2. According to the 50 questionnaires returned, 42 patients (84%) reported no or minimal pain, while 40 (80%) reported no or minimal discomfort. No episodes of postoperative urinary retention occurred, and only one patient required treatment for infection. Limitations include the low patient number and incomplete responses to questionnaires.ConclusionsThis novel Vector technique provides a feasible and tolerable procedure for MRI/ultrasound fusion TP biopsy under LA, with high cancer detection rates. This is achieved while maintaining patient comfort and with minimal rates of complications.Patient summaryWe report a novel technique that uses electromagnetic needle tracking to perform highly accurate and comfortable prostate biopsies through the perineum under local anaesthetic.