Search

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 greater than or equal to4+3 and/or cancer core length greater than or equal to6 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 greater than or equal to3; 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 greater than or equal to4; 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.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to serve as a non-invasive triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine the performance characteristics of mpMRI in men at risk before the first biopsy using 5 mm template prostate mapping (TPM) as the reference standard. One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ⩾3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ⩾4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ⩾4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ⩾4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance. One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed ‘any cancer’ and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41–82), 5.8 ng ml−1 (1.2–20), 40 ml (16–137) and 41 cores (20–93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88–99%), 23% (17–29%), 34% (28–40%), 89% (79–98%) and 0.72 (0.65–0.79), respectively. MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.

Oncologists traditionally assess their patients' ECOG performance status (PS), and few studies have evaluated the accuracy of these assessments. In this study, 101 patients attending a rapid access clinic at Papworth Hospital with a diagnosis of lung cancer were asked to assess their own ECOG PS score on a scale between 0 and 4. Patients' scores were compared to the PS assessment of them made by their oncologists. Of 98 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), weighted kappa statistics showed PS score agreement between patient and oncologist of 0.45. Both patient- and oncologist-assessed scores reflected survival duration (in NSCLC and SCLC) as well as disease stage (in NSCLC), with oncologist-assessed scores being only marginally more predictive of survival. There was no sex difference in patient assessment of PS scores, but oncologists scored female patients more pessimistically than males. This study showed that, with few exceptions, patients and oncologists assessed PS scores similarly. Although oncologists should continue to score PS objectively, it may benefit their clinical practice to involve their patients in these assessments.