Search

Purpose of Review: Prostate ablation is increasingly being utilized for the management of localized prostate cancer. There are several energy modalities with varying mechanism of actions which are currently used for prostate ablation. Prostate ablations, whether focal or whole gland, are performed under ultrasound and/or MRI guidance for appropriate treatment plan execution and monitoring. A familiarity with different intraoperative imaging findings and expected tissue response to these ablative modalities is paramount. In this review, we discuss the intraoperative, early, and delayed imaging findings in prostate from the effects of prostate ablation., Recent Findings: The monitoring of ablation both during and after the therapy became increasingly important due to the precise targeting of the target tissue. Recent findings suggest that real-time imaging techniques such as MRI or ultrasound can provide anatomical and functional information, allowing for precise ablation of the targeted tissue and increasing the effectiveness and precision of prostate cancer treatment. While intraprocedural imaging findings are variable, the follow-up imaging demonstrates similar findings across various energy modalities. MRI and ultrasound are two of the frequently used imaging techniques for intraoperative monitoring and temperature mapping of important surrounding structures. Follow-up imaging can provide valuable information about ablated tissue, including the success of the ablation, presence of residual cancer or recurrence after the ablation. It is critical and helpful to understand the imaging findings during the procedure and at different follow-up time periods to evaluate the procedure and its outcome., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

MRI features are presented in a multicenter retrospective series of five patients with a unilateral masslike lesion seen in the genitourinary diaphragm at MRI performed for known or suspected prostate cancer. In all cases, the lesion appeared as an encapsulated 1.3 to 3.0 cm mass of heterogeneous low or intermediate T2 signal intensity in the genitourinary diaphragm, and targeted biopsy demonstrated benign Cowper's gland tissue. This entity is a potential imaging pitfall that could result in a diagnosis of an exophytic nodule of benign prostatic hyperplasia or local spread of prostate cancer. We present these cases to facilitate correct identification of Cowper's gland hyperplasia as an occasional finding at MRI of the prostate., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to report on the practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. An electronic survey regarding prostate MRI practice patterns and challenges was sent to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. RESULTS. The response rate was 15% (212/1446). Most (65%) of the respondents were academic abdominal radiologists with 1-5 (52%), 6-10 (20%), 11-20 (15%), and more than 20 (5%) years of experience in reporting prostate MRI. The numbers of prostate MRI examinations reported per week were 0-5 (43%), 6-10 (38%), 11-20 (12%), 21-30 (5%), and more than 30 (2%). Imaging was performed at 3 T (58%), 1.5 T (20%), or either (21%), and most examinations (83%) were performed without an endorectal coil. Highest b values ranged from 800 to 5000 s/mm 2 ; 1400 s/mm 2 (26%) and 1500 s/mm 2 (30%) were the most common. Most respondents (79%) acquired dynamic contrast-enhanced images with temporal resolution of less than 10 seconds. Most (71%) of the prostate MRI studies were used for fusion biopsy. PI-RADS version 2 was used by 92% of the respondents and template reporting by 80%. Challenges to performing and interpreting prostate MRI were scored on a 1-5 Likert scale (1, easy; 2, somewhat easy; 3, neutral; 4, somewhat difficult; 5, very difficult). The median scores were 2 or 3 for patient preparatory factors. Image acquisition and reporting factors were scored 1-2, except for performing spectroscopy or using an endorectal coil, both of which scored 4. Acquiring patient history scored 2 and quality factors scored 3. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists perform prostate MRI at 3 T without an endorectal coil and interpret the images using PI-RADS version 2. Challenges include obtaining quality images, acquiring feedback, and variability in the interpretation of PI-RADS scores.

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) was developed with a consensus-based process using a combination of published data, and expert observations and opinions. In the short time since its release, numerous studies have validated the value of PI-RADS v2 but, as expected, have also identified a number of ambiguities and limitations, some of which have been documented in the literature with potential solutions offered. To address these issues, the PI-RADS Steering Committee, again using a consensus-based process, has recommended several modifications to PI-RADS v2, maintaining the framework of assigning scores to individual sequences and using these scores to derive an overall assessment category. This updated version, described in this article, is termed PI-RADS v2.1. It is anticipated that the adoption of these PI-RADS v2.1 modifications will improve inter-reader variability and simplify PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging even further. Research on the value and limitations on all components of PI-RADS v2.1 is strongly encouraged., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Conventional ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies have multiple limitations leading to underdetection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and overdetection of clinically insignificant PCa. Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate offers better localization of prostatic tumors in comparison with ultrasound imaging and can help address these limitations. MR imaging-identified lesions can be targeted for biopsy directly in-gantry or indirectly using a fusion of MR imaging and ultrasound imaging. The fusion may be performed by the operator visually or using a software fusion device. In this article, we review the various techniques for MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies and their clinical impact for PCa diagnosis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We seek to characterize differences in the shape of the prostate and the central gland (combined central and transitional zones) between men with biopsy confirmed prostate cancer and men who were identified as not having prostate cancer either on account of a negative biopsy or had pelvic imaging done for a non-prostate malignancy. T2w MRI from 70 men were acquired at three institutions. The cancer positive group (PCa+) comprised 35 biopsy positive (Bx+) subjects from three institutions (Gleason scores: 6-9, Stage: T1-T3). The negative group (PCa-) combined 24 biopsy negative (Bx-) from two institutions and 11 subjects diagnosed with rectal cancer but with no clinical or MRI indications of prostate cancer (Cl-). The boundaries of the prostate and central gland were delineated on T2w MRI by two expert raters and were used to construct statistical shape atlases for the PCa+, Bx- and Cl- prostates. An atlas comparison was performed via per-voxel statistical tests to localize shape differences (significance assessed at p < 0.05). The atlas comparison revealed central gland hypertrophy in the Bx- subpopulation, resulting in significant volume and posterior side shape differences relative to PCa+ group. Significant differences in the corresponding prostate shapes were noted at the apex when comparing the Cl- and PCa+ prostates., Competing Interests: Mirabela Rusu is currently an employee of GE Global Research. Anant Madabhushi is an equity holder in Elucid Bioimaging and in Inspirata Inc. Anant Madabhushi is a scientific advisory consultant for Inspirata Inc and sits on its scientific advisory board.

Purpose: After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies., Materials and Methods: As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review., Results: The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results., Conclusions: Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen., (Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prostate MRI has been a hot topic in recent years in large part due to the high incidence of prostate cancer worldwide. Advances in technology have allowed multiparametric MRI to improve lesion detection and characterization in prostate imaging. Additionally, prostate MRI has shown great promise in the detection of clinically significant cancer. In 2012, the European Society of Urogenital Radiology established clinical guidelines for multiparametric MRI of the prostate to facilitate a greater level of standardization and consistency, which became known as the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Subsequently, the American College of Radiology, European Society of Urogenital Radiology and the AdMeTech Foundation jointly created PI-RADS version 2. This article focuses on summarizing the key points of PI-RADS version 2.

The important role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the anatomic evaluation, detection, and staging of prostate cancer is well established. This paper focuses on the pertinent embryologic, anatomic, and imaging facts regarding both the normal prostate and the several examples of prostate cancers as well as staging implications. The discussion primarily includes findings related to T2-weighted imaging as opposed to the other functional sequences, including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) or dynamic contrast enhanced MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging, respectively.

Background and Purpose: The feasibility and diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has to be proven further. In this study, we evaluate the role of mp-MRI for targeted biopsy of early stage prostate cancer (PCa)., Patients and Methods: A total 32 consecutive patients with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy-proven PCa meeting low-risk criteria and pursuing active surveillance were selected to undergo mp-MRI 3 Tesla (3T) with endorectal coil. Patients were divided then into three groups based on the method used to target the mp-MRI designated region of interest (ROI): Group 1 underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy using an MRI-based coordinate plan (cognitive targeting). Group 2 underwent MRI-targeted TRUS-guided prostate biopsy using MyLabTMTwice, which superimposed the archived MRI images onto the real-time ultrasonography image allowing targeted biopsy of the ROI (fusion targeting). Group 3 included selected patients who had an elevation in prostate-specific antigen levels, or patients followed after radiation therapy (two patients) for suspicious unifocal MRI lesion recurrence. These patients underwent MRI-guided biopsy of the suspicious ROI using the navigation system DynaTRIM., Results: The cancer detection rate in group 1 was 33.3% (3 of 10 patients), while in group 2, it was significantly higher at 46.2%. The sensitivity and specificity for group 1 was 45.5% and 33.3%, vs 61.9% and 20.8% in group 2, respectively. The positive predictive value in group 1 was 50.0% vs 53.8% in group 2 (P=0.04). In group 3, the cancer detection rate was much higher (80%) than in group 2, (P=0.005) although the majority of these patients (7 of 10) had a previously diagnosed prostate cancer on TRUS-guided 12-core biopsy., Conclusion: Our preliminary experience of mp-MRI suggests the detection of early stage prostate cancer with low-risk features yields potential candidates for active surveillance or focal targeted therapy. The MRI-TRUS fusion system increases diagnostic yield compared with cognitive MRI-directed TRUS-guided biopsy.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer and population-based screening programmes are being increasingly adopted worldwide. Screening-positive patients undergo routine transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy, which is the current diagnostic standard for prostate cancer. However, systematic biopsies suffer from poor sensitivity, especially for the tumors of the anterior prostate and apex as well as in large volume glands. In the past decade, MRI-guided targeted biopsies have come up, which utilize the multiparametric capability of MRI to target lesions for sampling. MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies combine the advantages of MRI-targeting with that of real-time guidance made possible by TRUS. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsies are being increasingly used in men with high clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who have had prior negative systematic biopsies. A large number of fusion biopsy platforms are currently available commercially. Although the basic workflow is similar, there are differences in the operational software, biopsy routes offered, TRUS acquisition technique, type of correction applied at the time of fusion and in the probe tracking hardware. The article describes the current role and indications of MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy followed by a discussion on the workflow, patient preparation, biopsy procedure and complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer (PCa) is extremely prevalent and is the most common noncutaneous malignancy and second-most common cause of cancer death in men. In the last decade, there has been dramatic growth in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for diagnosis and characterization of PCa. With the recent and marked surge in popularity in prostate imaging and, specifically, mpMRI, there has been an increased focus on structured reporting as a means by which to provide more actionable information to the referring clinician as well as to improve diagnostic performance with this technique. This work focuses on the evolution of the major structured reporting system in prostate mpMRI, Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS), from its initial proposal and establishment in 2012 as PI-RADS v. 1 to its most current iteration, PI-RADS v. 2.1. This will highlight the key elements that have changed between the versions as well as provide context and rationale for these changes. In addition, this work explores what future iterations of PI-RADS could look like based on current limitations of the system as well as explore areas for future growth of prostate mpMRI, including use of the system in active surveillance populations and in the posttreatment setting. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:33-53. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the frequent statement that "most men die with prostate cancer, not of it," the reality is that prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer as a cause of death from malignancy in American men. The primary goal during baseline evaluation of prostate cancer is disease characterization, that is, establishing disease presence, extent (local and distant), and aggressiveness. Prostate cancer is usually diagnosed after the finding of a suspicious serum prostate-specific antigen level or digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis may be obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy. The latter requires a preliminary multiparametric MRI, which has emerged as a powerful and relatively accurate tool for the local evaluation of prostate cancer over the last few decades. Bone scintigraphy and CT are primarily used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients found to have intermediate- or high-risk disease at biopsy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]