Search

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis. Aim: To understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. Design and setting: Qualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon. Method: Semi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs. Results: Twenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47–80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36–55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced. Conclusion: Prostate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The mental wellbeing implications of a prostate cancer diagnosis are increasingly being realised. Significant mental health symptoms such as depression and anxiety, along with related constructs such as fear of cancer recurrence, body image and masculine self-esteem issues are prevalent. However, less is understood about potential prognostic factors for these outcomes in prostate cancer patients. Therefore, this study aims to primarily explore potential treatment, patient and oncological factors associated with mental wellbeing outcomes in the initial prostate cancer follow-up period. Methods: MIND-P is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study recruiting newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients for 12-month follow up. It will aim to recruit a final sample of 300 participants undergoing one of four treatment options: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, or hormone monotherapy. Questionnaire-based data collection consists of multiple validated mental, physical, and social wellbeing outcomes at baseline and 3-monthly intervals until study completion. Primary analysis will include evaluation of treatment undergone against multiple mental wellbeing outcomes. Secondary analysis will additionally explore multiple patient and oncological prognostic factors of potential importance, along with the cumulative incidence of these outcomes, symptom trajectory and their association with subsequent functional and social outcomes. Conclusion: This cohort study aims to add to the existing limited literature evaluating significant prognostic factors for multiple mental wellbeing outcomes in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. This may be of potential use for guiding future prognosis research and of clinical use for identifying individuals potentially requiring additional surveillance or support during routine cancer follow up. Study registration: This study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04647474). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre‐biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy. Patients and Methods: A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre‐RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID. Results: The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre‐RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3–34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9–34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. Conclusions: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre‐level variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer. Methods: Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired-cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference standard). Results: When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods. Conclusion: Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modified for low prevalence of the target condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer.Methods: Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired-cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference standard).Results: When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods.Conclusion: Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modified for low prevalence of the target condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The ReIMAGINE Consortium was conceived to develop risk-stratification models that might incorporate the full range of novel prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics (both commercial and academic). Methods: ReIMAGINE Risk is an ethics approved (19/LO/1128) multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study which will recruit 1000 treatment-naive men undergoing a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) due to an elevated PSA (≤20ng/ml) or abnormal prostate examination who subsequently had a suspicious mpMRI (score≥3, stage ≤T3bN0M0). Primary outcomes include the detection of ≥Gleason 7 PCa at baseline and time to clinical progression, metastasis and death. Baseline blood, urine, and biopsy cores for fresh prostate tissue samples (2 targeted and 1 non-targeted) will be biobanked for future analysis. High-resolution scanning of pathology whole-slide imaging and MRI-DICOM images will be collected. Consortium partners will be granted access to data and biobanks to develop and validate biomarkers using correlation to mpMRI, biopsy-based disease status and long-term clinical outcomes. Results: Recruitment began in September 2019(n = 533). A first site opened in September 2019 (n = 296), a second in November 2019 (n = 210) and a third in December 2020 (n = 27). Acceptance to the study has been 65% and a mean of 36.5ml(SD+/-10.0), 12.9ml(SD+/-3.7) and 2.8ml(SD+/-0.7) urine, plasma and serum donated for research, respectively. There are currently 4 academic and 15 commercial partners spanning imaging (~9 radiomics, artificial intelligence/machine learning), fluidic (~3 blood-based and ~2urine-based) and tissue-based (~1) biomarkers. Conclusion: The consortium will develop, or adjust, risk models for PCa, and provide a platform for evaluating the role of novel diagnostics in the era of pre-biopsy MRI and targeted biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review of the existing literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women, as the transgender population share many of the same healthcare needs as their cisgender counterparts, but may have additional specialist needs. Materials and methods: We performed a non‐systematic review of the literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women. Results: Our search revealed 10 case reports of prostate cancer in transgender women, four specialist opinion papers, six cohort studies, and four systematic reviews. The information in these publications were assimilated to produce a review of prostate cancer in transgender women. Conclusion: The risk of prostate cancer in transgender women who are not on gender‐affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or who have not had gender‐affirming surgery (GAS) and gender non‐conforming individuals (who may never commence GAHT or have GAS) is the same as that in the cis male population. In these patients, healthcare professionals need to be able to discuss screening, diagnostic and treatment options considering future wishes for gender‐affirming treatment. Prostate cancer incidence in transgender women on GAHT or following GAS is lower than age‐matched cis‐male counterparts, but diagnosis and treatment is more nuanced. The present review discusses the existing literature about development and incidence of prostate cancer in this population, and makes recommendations about screening, the usefulness of diagnostic tools e.g. prostate‐specific antigen and magnetic resonance imaging, and considerations when formulating treatment. Potential directions for future research are discussed, which will hopefully lead to development of robust evidence‐based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in transgender women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report toxicity of treatment observed in men participating in the Robotic surgery After Focal Therapy (RAFT) clinical trial. Patients and Methods: Men were eligible for this prospective single group interventional study if they had histologically confirmed recurrent/residual prostate adenocarcinoma following primary FT. The short‐form Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC‐26) measured prior to salvage robotic prostatectomy (S‐RARP) and 3‐monthly post‐operatively together with Clavien‐Dindo complications (I–IV). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence‐free survival (BCFS) following surgery and need for salvage treatment after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03011606. Results: Twenty‐four men were recruited between February 2016 and September 2018. 1 patient withdrew from the trial after consenting and before S‐RARP. 23 men completed 12‐month post S‐RARP follow‐up. Median EPIC‐26 urinary continence scores initially deteriorated after 3 months (82.4 vs 100) but there was no statistically significant difference from baseline at 12 months (100 vs 100, P = 0.31). Median lower urinary tract symptom scores improved after 12 months compared to baseline (93.8 vs 87.5, P = 0.01). At 12 months, 19/23 (83%) were pad‐free and 22/23 (96%) required 0/1 pads. Median sexual function subscale scores deteriorated and remained low at 12 months (22.2 vs 58.3, P < 0.001). Utilising a minimally important difference of nine points, at 12 months after surgery 17/23 (74%) reported urinary continence to be 'better' or 'not different' to pre‐operative baseline. The corresponding figure for sexual function (utilising a minimally important difference of 12 points) was 7/23 (30%). There was no statistically significant difference on median bowel/hormonal subscale scores. Only a single patient had a post‐operative complication (Clavien‐Dindo Grade I). BCFS at 12 months after surgery was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1–93.1%) while 4/23 (17%) received salvage radiation. Conclusions: The RAFT clinical trial suggests toxicity of surgery after FT is low, with good urinary function outcomes, albeit sexual function deteriorated overall. Oncological outcomes at 12 months appear acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for surgical interventions have often proven difficult with calls for innovative approaches. The Imperial Prostate (IP4) Comparative Health Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS) study aims to deliver level 1 evidence on outcomes following focal therapy which involves treating just the tumour rather than whole-gland surgery or radiotherapy. Our aim is to test the feasibility of two parallel RCTs within an overarching strategy that fits with existing patient and physician equipoise and maximises the chances of success and potential benefit to patients and healthcare services.Methods and Design: IP4-CHRONOS is a randomised, unblinded multi-centre study, including two parallel randomised controlled trials targeting the same patient population: IP4-CHRONOS-A and IP4-CHRONOS-B. IP4-CHRONOS-A is a 1:1 RCT and the other is a multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) RCT starting with three arms and a 1:1:1 randomisation. The two linked RCTs are discussed with patients at the time of consent and the choice of A or B is dependent on physician and patient equipoise. The primary outcome is the feasibility of recruitment, acceptance of randomisation and compliance to allocated arm.Results: This paper describes the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the feasibility study within IP4-CHRONOS given its innovative approach. Version 1.0 of the SAP has been reviewed by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Chief Investigator (CI), Senior Statistician and Trial Statistician and signed off. The study is ongoing and recruiting. Recruitment is scheduled to finish later in 2021. The SAP documents approved methods and analyses that will be conducted. Since this is written in advance of the analysis, we avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study data and findings.Discussion: Our feasibility analysis will demonstrate if IP4-CHRONOS is feasible in terms of recruitment, randomisation and compliance, and whether to continue both A and B or just one to the main stage.Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN17796995 . Registered on 08 October 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. Materials and methods: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007–November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6–12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. Results: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). Conclusion: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer. Conclusion: The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on multiple researchers developing computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms enabling the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on MRI. Topics include developments being welcomed by radiologists, urologists, and healthcare administrators facing the increased demand for MRI-influenced prostate biopsies; and number of acceptable false detections depending on the urologist or patient showing biopsy versus cancer averse.

Objectives: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. Results: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. Conclusions: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. Key Points: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report the study protocol for the first international multicentre randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of simulation‐based surgical training and the development process for an evidence‐based training curriculum, to be delivered as an educational intervention. Participants and Methods: This prospective, international, multicentre randomized controlled clinical and educational trial will recruit urology surgical trainees who must not have performed ≥10 of the selected index procedure, ureterorenoscopy (URS). Participants will be randomized to simulation‐based training (SBT) or non‐simulation‐based training (NSBT), the latter of which is the current sole standard of training globally. The primary outcome is the number of procedures required to achieve proficiency, where proficiency is defined as achieving a learning curve plateau of 28 or more on an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) assessment scale, for three consecutive operations, without any complications. All participants will be followed up either until they complete 25 procedures or for 18 months. Development of the URS SBT curriculum took place through a two‐round Delphi process. Results: A total of 47 respondents, consisting of trainees (n = 24) with URS experience and urolithiasis specialists (n = 23), participated in round 1 of the Delphi process. Specialists (n = 10) finalized the content of the curriculum in round 2. The developed interventional curriculum consists of initial theoretic knowledge through didactic lectures followed by select tasks and cases on the URO‐Mentor (Simbionix, Lod, Israel) VR Simulator, Uro‐Scopic Trainer (Limbs & Things, Bristol, UK) and Scope Trainer (Mediskills, Manchester, UK) models for both semi‐rigid and flexible URS. Respondents also selected relevant non‐technical skills scenarios and cadaveric simulation tasks as additional components, with delivery subject to local availability. Conclusions: SIMULATE is the first multicentre trial investigating the effect and transferability of supplementary SBT on operating performance and patient outcomes. An evidence‐based training curriculum is presented, developed with expert and trainee input. Participants will be followed and the primary outcome, number of procedures required to proficiency, will be reported alongside key clinical secondary outcomes, (ISCRTN 12260261). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high‐intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. Patients and Methods: In this multicentre study (2005–2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non‐metastatic prostate cancer. The patient‐reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow‐up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow‐up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. Results: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow‐up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate‐specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was −0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was −0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1–2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak‐free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad‐free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1–2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by −1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1–2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2–3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was −0.2 at 1–2 years (P = 0.60) and −0.5 at 2–3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1–2 years and 2.6% at 2–3 years. Conclusion: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non‐metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Analysis of treatment success regarding oncological recurrence rate between standard and dose escalation focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: In this analysis of our prospectively maintained HIFU (Sonablate® 500) database, 598 patients were identified who underwent a focal HIFU (Sonablate 500) between March 2007 and November 2016. Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in the first year. Thereafter, PSA was measured 6-monthly or annually at least. Routine and for-cause multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was conducted with biopsy for MRI suspicion of recurrence. Treatments were delivered in a quadrant or hemiablation fashion depending on the gland volume as well as tumor volume and location. Before mid-2015, standard focal HIFU was used (two HIFU blocks); after this date, some urologists conducted dose escalation focal HIFU (three overlapping HIFU blocks). Propensity matching was used to ensure two matched groups, leading to 162 cases for this analysis. Treatment failure was defined by any secondary treatment (systemic therapy, cryotherapy, radiotherapy, prostatectomy, or further HIFU), metastasis from prostate cancer without further treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason score ≥7 (≥3 + 4) on prostate biopsy without further treatment, or prostate cancer-related mortality. Complications and side-effects were also compared. Results: Median age was 64.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60–73.5) in the standard focal-HIFU group and 64.5 years (IQR 60–69) in the dose-escalation group. Median prostate volume was 37 mL (IQR 17–103) in the standard group and 47.5 mL (IQR 19–121) in the dose-escalation group. As tumor volume on mpMRI and Gleason score were major matching criteria, these were identical with 0.43 mL (IQR 0.05–2.5) and Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 in 1 out of 32 (3%), 3 + 4 = 7 in 27 out of 32 (84%), and 4 + 3 = 7 in 4 out of 32 (13%). Recurrence in treated areas was found in 10 out of 32 (31%) when standard treatment zones were applied, and in 6 out of 32 (19%) of dose-escalation focal HIFU (p = 0.007). Conclusion: This exploratory study shows that dose escalation focal HIFU may achieve higher rates of disease control compared with standard focal HIFU. Further prospective comparative studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the additional diagnostic value of diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging (DCE) in men requiring a repeat biopsy within the PICTURE study. Patients and Methods: PICTURE was a paired‐cohort confirmatory study in which 249 men who required further risk stratification after a previous non‐magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐guided transrectal ultrasonography‐guided biopsy underwent a 3‐Tesla (3T) multiparametic (mp)MRI consisting of T2‐weighted imaging (T2W), DWI and DCE, followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Each mpMRI was reported using a LIKERT score in a sequential blinded manner to generate scores for T2W, T2W+DWI and T2W+DWI+DCE. Area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of each combination. The threshold for a positive mpMRI was set at a LIKERT score ≥3. Clinically significant prostate cancer was analysed across a range of definitions including UCL/Ahmed definition 1 (primary definition), UCL/Ahmed definition 2, any Gleason ≥3 + 4 and any Gleason ≥4 + 3. Results: Of 249 men, sequential MRI reporting was available for 246. There was a higher rate of equivocal lesions (44.6%) using T2W alone compared to the addition of DWI (23.9%) and DCE (19.8%). Using the primary definition of clinically significant disease, there was no significant difference in the overall accuracy between T2W, with an AUROC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–0.80), T2W+DWI at 0.76 (95% CI 0.71–0.82), and T2W+DWI+DCE, with an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.82; P = 0.55). The AUROC values remained comparable using other definitions of clinically significant disease including UCL/Ahmed definition 2 (P = 0.79), Gleason ≥3 + 4 (P = 0.53) and Gleason ≥4 + 3 (P = 0.53). Conclusions: Using 3T MRI, a high level of diagnostic accuracy can be achieved using T2W as a single parameter in men with a prior biopsy; however, such a strategy can lead to a higher rate of equivocal lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robotic prostate biopsy is an emerging technology. Recent development of this tool has allowed the performance of a transperineal prostate biopsy allowing pre-programmed standardized biopsy schemes. Prospective data collection was undertaken in 86 consecutive men who underwent robotically assisted transperineal prostate biopsy. All underwent a multi-parametric MRI pre-biopsy with centroid targeting followed by systematic template prostate biopsy. For the purposes of this study, our definition of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is any Gleason score > 6. Mean (SD) age, median (IQR) PSA, and median (IQR) prostate volume were 64.24 (6.97) years, of 7.79 ng/ml (6.5) and 45.06 cc (28), respectively. Overall, 44 (51.2%) men were diagnosed with csPCa. csPCa was detected in the targeted biopsies alone in 35 (40.1%) men. The addition of the 12-zone template biopsy increased the yield of csPCa for another 9 (10.5%) men. Of these 9 men, the majority (7) harbored primary pattern 3 disease and only 1 was identified to have high-grade disease. Out of these 9 men, 7 of them had the identification of csPCa in the sector, where a target was contained within that zone. Robotic-assisted prostate biopsy in our study has demonstrated a high detection of csPCa when combined with limited near-field sampling. Our study suggests the use of more accurate biopsy schemes such as ring-targeting of lesions to mitigate against systematic and random mathematical errors. Adoption of this tool and biopsy strategy would potentially avoid the increased morbidity associated with whole gland systematic unguided biopsies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A total of 489 pre‐biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI‐RADS v2 by expert uro‐radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI‐RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a 'per score' basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60–72) years and the median (IQR) prostate‐specific antigen level was 7 (5–10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI‐RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI‐RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI‐RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions: Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether patients with Gleason 3 + 4 cancer on transrectal biopsy are upgraded after undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐targeted biopsy and whether this has implications for current clinical practice. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective analysis we examined 107 consecutive patients presenting at a single tertiary referral centre (July 2012 to July 2016) with prostate cancer of Gleason score 3 + 4 on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)‐guided systematic non‐targeted biopsy who then underwent a multiparametric MRI followed by MRI‐targeted transperineal prostate biopsy for accurate risk stratification and localization. Results: The patients' mean (sd) age was 67.0 (8.0) years, and they had a median (interquartile range) PSA concentration of 6.2 (4.7–9.6) ng/mL. Of the 107 patients, 84 (78.5%) had Gleason 3 + 4 on both transrectal systematic biopsy and transperineal MRI‐targeted biopsy. Nineteen patients (17.8%) were upgraded to Gleason 4 + 3, three patients (3.0%) to Gleason 4 + 4 and one patient (1.0%) to Gleason 4 + 5. These differences were significant (P = 0.0006). Likewise, 23/107 patients (22%) had higher‐risk disease based on their targeted biopsies. Conclusion: The use of targeted biopsy in men with impalpable cancer, ultimately upgraded one in five patients from favourable‐intermediate‐ to unfavourable‐intermediate‐risk disease or worse. This has significant clinical implications for men considering active surveillance or radical treatment. Our risk calculators must now be validated using these data from targeted biopsy as the technique becomes widely adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report medium‐term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high‐intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi‐ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium‐term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5‐year retreatment probability. Results: A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate‐specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow‐up was 36 (14–64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re‐treatment within 5 years of first treatment. Conclusions: Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5‐year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re‐do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was: To test whether machine learning classifiers for transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ) can correctly classify prostate tumors into those with/without a Gleason 4 component, and to compare the performance of the best performing classifiers against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists.Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data was performed at a single center between 2012 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were (i) 3-T mp-MRI compliant with international guidelines, (ii) Likert ≥ 3/5 lesion, (iii) transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy confirming cancer ≥ Gleason 3 + 3. Index lesions from 164 men were analyzed (119 PZ, 45 TZ). Quantitative MRI and clinical features were used and zone-specific machine learning classifiers were constructed. Models were validated using a fivefold cross-validation and a temporally separated patient cohort. Classifier performance was compared against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists.Results: The best PZ classifier trained with prostate-specific antigen density, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and maximum enhancement (ME) on DCE-MRI obtained a ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 following fivefold cross-validation. Diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity was higher for the best PZ model (0.93) when compared with the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.72). The best TZ model used ADC and ME to obtain an AUC of 0.75 following fivefold cross-validation. This achieved higher diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity (0.88) than the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.82).Conclusions: Machine learning classifiers predict Gleason pattern 4 in prostate tumors better than radiologists.Key Points: • Predictive models developed from quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regarding the characterization of prostate cancer grade should be zone-specific. • Classifiers trained differently for peripheral and transition zone can predict a Gleason 4 component with a higher performance than the subjective opinion of experienced radiologists. • Classifiers would be particularly useful in the context of active surveillance, whereby decisions regarding whether to biopsy are necessitated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Compare the performance of zone-specific multi-parametric-MRI (mp-MRI) diagnostic models in prostate cancer detection with experienced radiologists.Methods: A single-centre, IRB approved, prospective STARD compliant 3 T MRI test dataset of 203 patients was generated to test validity and generalisability of previously reported 1.5 T mp-MRI diagnostic models. All patients included within the test dataset underwent 3 T mp-MRI, comprising T2, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging followed by transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy. Separate diagnostic models (transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ)) were applied to respective zones. Sensitivity/specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) were calculated for the two zone-specific models. Two radiologists (A and B) independently Likert scored test 3 T mp-MRI dataset, allowing ROC analysis for each radiologist for each prostate zone.Results: Diagnostic models applied to the test dataset demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) in the PZ and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61-0.75) in the TZ. Radiologist A/B had a ROC-AUC = 0.78/0.74 in the PZ and 0.69/0.69 in the TZ. Radiologists A and B each scored 51 patients in the PZ and 41 and 45 patients respectively in the TZ as Likert 3. The PZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.65/0.67 for the patients Likert scored as indeterminate by radiologist A/B respectively, whereas the TZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74/0.69.Conclusion: Zone-specific mp-MRI diagnostic models demonstrate generalisability between 1.5 and 3 T mp-MRI protocols and show similar classification performance to experienced radiologists for prostate cancer detection. Results also indicate the ability of diagnostic models to classify cases with an indeterminate radiologist score.Key Points: • MRI diagnostic models had similar performance to experienced radiologists for classification of prostate cancer. • MRI diagnostic models may help radiologists classify tumour in patients with indeterminate Likert 3 scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abbreviations CPD continuing professional development DCE dynamic contrast-enhanced MDT multidisciplinary team mpMRI multiparametric MRI Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is now recommended as the initial investigation method for men with suspected prostate cancer within both UK and international guidelines. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi‐parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. Materials and Methods: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California‐Los Angeles (UCLA‐RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9‐point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted ‘agreement’ for an item; for an item to reach ‘consensus’, a panel majority scoring was required. Results: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. Conclusions: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high‐quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Image‐guided systems that fuse magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound (US) images for performing targeted prostate needle biopsy and minimally invasive treatments for prostate cancer are of increasing clinical interest. To date, a wide range of different accuracy estimation procedures and error metrics have been reported, which makes comparing the performance of different systems difficult. Methods: A set of nine measures are presented to assess the accuracy of MRI‐US image registration, needle positioning, needle guidance, and overall system error, with the aim of providing a methodology for estimating the accuracy of instrument placement using a MR/US‐guided transperineal approach. Results: Using the SmartTarget fusion system, an MRI‐US image alignment error was determined to be 2.0 ± 1.0 mm (mean ± SD), and an overall system instrument targeting error of 3.0 ± 1.2 mm. Three needle deployments for each target phantom lesion was found to result in a 100% lesion hit rate and a median predicted cancer core length of 5.2 mm. Conclusions: The application of a comprehensive, unbiased validation assessment for MR/US guided systems can provide useful information on system performance for quality assurance and system comparison. Furthermore, such an analysis can be helpful in identifying relationships between these errors, providing insight into the technical behavior of these systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop a core outcome set ( COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Patients, Subjects and Methods A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals ( HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients. Results The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. Conclusion We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate multiparametric-MRI (mpMRI) derived histogram textural-analysis parameters for detection of transition zone (TZ) prostatic tumour.Methods: Sixty-seven consecutive men with suspected prostate cancer underwent 1.5T mpMRI prior to template-mapping-biopsy (TPM). Twenty-six men had 'significant' TZ tumour. Two radiologists in consensus matched TPM to the single axial slice best depicting tumour, or largest TZ diameter for those with benign histology, to define single-slice whole TZ-regions-of-interest (ROIs). Textural-parameter differences between single-slice whole TZ-ROI containing significant tumour versus benign/insignificant tumour were analysed using Mann Whitney U test. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC-AUC) analysis cross-validated with leave-one-out (LOO) analysis.Results: ADC kurtosis was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in TZ containing significant tumour with ROC-AUC 0.80 (LOO-AUC 0.78); the difference became non-significant following exclusion of significant tumour from single-slice whole TZ-ROI (p = 0.23). T1-entropy was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in TZ containing significant tumour with ROC-AUC 0.70 (LOO-AUC 0.66) and was unaffected by excluding significant tumour from TZ-ROI (p = 0.004). Combining these parameters yielded ROC-AUC 0.86 (LOO-AUC 0.83).Conclusion: Textural features of the whole prostate TZ can discriminate significant prostatic cancer through reduced kurtosis of the ADC-histogram where significant tumour is included in TZ-ROI and reduced T1 entropy independent of tumour inclusion.Key Points: • MR textural features of prostate transition zone may discriminate significant prostatic cancer. • Transition zone (TZ) containing significant tumour demonstrates a less peaked ADC histogram. • TZ containing significant tumour reveals higher post-contrast T1-weighted homogeneity. • The utility of MR texture analysis in prostate cancer merits further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Transrectal prostate biopsy has limited diagnostic accuracy. Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE) was a paired-cohort confirmatory study designed to assess diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men requiring a repeat biopsy.Methods:All underwent 3 T mpMRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies (TTPM biopsies). Multiparametric MRI was reported using Likert scores and radiologists were blinded to initial biopsies. Men were blinded to mpMRI results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or cancer core length ⩾6 mm.Results:Two hundred and forty-nine had both tests with mean (s.d.) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 ng ml (4.98-9.50), median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (s.d.) gland size 37 ml (15.5). On TTPM biopsies, 103 (41%) had clinically significant prostate cancer. Two hundred and fourteen (86%) had a positive prostate mpMRI using Likert score ⩾3; sensitivity was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92-99), specificity 21.9% (15.5-29.5), negative predictive value (NPV) 91.4% (76.9-98.1) and positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7% (35.2-47.8). One hundred and twenty-nine (51.8%) had a positive mpMRI using Likert score ⩾4; sensitivity was 80.6% (71.6-87.7), specificity 68.5% (60.3-75.9), NPV 83.3% (75.4-89.5) and PPV 64.3% (55.4-72.6).Conclusions:In men advised to have a repeat prostate biopsy, prostate mpMRI could be used to safely avoid a repeat biopsy with high sensitivity for clinically significant cancers. However, such a strategy can miss some significant cancers and overdiagnose insignificant cancers depending on the mpMRI score threshold used to define which men should be biopsied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Three- and four-dimensional transrectal ultrasound transducers are now available from most major ultrasound equipment manufacturers, but currently are incorporated into only one commercial prostate biopsy guidance system. Such transducers offer the benefits of rapid volumetric imaging, but can cause substantial measurement distortion in electromagnetic tracking sensors, which are commonly used to enable 3-D navigation. In this paper, we describe the design, development, and validation of a 3-D-ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy system that employs high-accuracy optical tracking to localize the ultrasound probe and prostate targets in 3-D physical space. Methods: The accuracy of the system was validated by evaluating the targeted needle placement error after inserting a biopsy needle to sample planned targets in a phantom using standard 2-D ultrasound guidance versus real-time 3-D guidance provided by the new system. Results: The overall mean needle-segment-to-target distance error was 3.6 ± 4.0 mm and mean needle-to-target distance was 3.2 ± 2.4 mm. Conclusion: A significant increase in needle placement accuracy was observed when using the 3-D guidance system compared with visual targeting of invisible (virtual) lesions using a standard B-mode ultrasound-guided biopsy technique. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Whilst multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has been a significant advance in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, scanning all patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels is considered too costly for widespread National Health Service (NHS) use, as the predictive value of PSA levels for significant disease is poor. Despite the fact that novel blood and urine tests are available which may predict aggressive disease better than PSA, they are not routinely employed due to a lack of clinical validity studies. Furthermore approximately 40 % of mp-MRI studies are reported as indeterminate, which can lead to repeat examinations or unnecessary biopsy with associated patient anxiety, discomfort, risk and additional costs. Methods/Design: We aim to clinically validate a panel of minimally invasive promising blood and urine biomarkers, to better select patients that will benefit from a multiparametric prostate MRI. We will then test whether the performance of the mp-MRI can be improved by the addition of an advanced diffusion-weighted MRI technique, which uses a biophysical model to characterise tissue microstructure called VERDICT; Vascular and Extracellular Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumours. INNOVATE is a prospective single centre cohort study in 365 patients. mp-MRI will act as the reference standard for the biomarker panel. A clinical outcome based reference standard based on biopsy, mp-MRI and follow-up will be used for VERDICT MRI. Discussion: We expect the combined effect of biomarkers and VERDICT MRI will improve care by better detecting aggressive prostate cancer early and make mp-MRI before biopsy economically viable for universal NHS adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine whether modified transperineal template prostate-mapping ( TTPM) biopsy protocols, altering the template or the biopsy density, have sensitivity and negative predictive value ( NPV) equal to full 5-mm TTPM. Patients and Methods Retrospective analysis of an institutional registry including treatment-naïve men undergoing 5-mm TTPM biopsy analysed in a 20-zone fashion. The value of three modified strategies was assessed by comparing the information provided by selected zones against full 5-mm TTPM. Strategy 1, did not consider the findings of anterior areas; strategies 2 and 3 simulated a reduced biopsy density by excluding intervening zones. A bootstrapping technique was used to calculate reliable estimates of sensitivity and NPV of these three strategies for the detection of clinically significant disease (maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm and/or Gleason score ≥3 + 4). Results In all, 391 men with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 62 (58-67) years were included. The median ( IQR) PSA level and PSA density were 6.9 (4.8-10) ng/mL and 0.17 ( IQR 0.12-0.25) ng/mL/mL, respectively. A median ( IQR) of 6 (2-9) cores out of 48 (33-63) taken per man were positive for prostate cancer. No cancer was detected in 67 men (17%), whilst low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease was identified in 78 (20%), 80 (21%), and 166 (42%), respectively. Strategy 1, 2 and 3 had sensitivities of 78% [95% confidence interval ( CI) 73-84%], 85% (95% CI 80-90%) and 84% (95% CI 79-89%), respectively. The NPVs of the three strategies were 73% (95% CI 67-80%), 80% (95% CI 74-86%) and 79% (95% CI 72-84%), respectively. Conclusion Altering the template or decreasing sampling density has a substantial negative impact on the ability of TTPM biopsy to exclude clinically significant disease. This should be considered when modified TTPM biopsy strategies are used to select men for tissue-preserving approaches, and when modified TTPM are used to validate new diagnostic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]