Search

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.

Simple Summary: This multicenter, retrospective study assessed the added value of magnetic resonance dispersion imaging (MRDI), a quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), alongside standard multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Seventy-six patients, including fifty-one with csPCa, who underwent mpMRI and radical prostatectomy, were included. Two radiologists evaluated mpMRI, MRDI and a combination of both, with histopathology serving as the reference standard. The study found that MRDI improved inter-observer agreement and enhanced csPCa detection when combined with mpMRI. MRDI enabled the detection of up to 20% more cases compared to mpMRI alone. With the role of DCE-MRI in the context of mpMRI being debated, this study suggests that quantitative analysis of DCE-MRI by MRDI could enhance csPCa detection and reduce variability between observers. In this multicenter, retrospective study, we evaluated the added value of magnetic resonance dispersion imaging (MRDI) to standard multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for PCa detection. The study included 76 patients, including 51 with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), who underwent radical prostatectomy and had an mpMRI including dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Two radiologists performed three separate randomized scorings based on mpMRI, MRDI and mpMRI+MRDI. Radical prostatectomy histopathology was used as the reference standard. Imaging and histopathology were both scored according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System V2.0 sector map. Sensitivity and specificity for PCa detection were evaluated for mpMRI, MRDI and mpMRI+MRDI. Inter- and intra-observer variability for both radiologists was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa. On a per-patient level, sensitivity for csPCa for radiologist 1 (R1) for mpMRI, MRDI and mpMRI+MRDI was 0.94, 0.82 and 0.94, respectively. For the second radiologist (R2), these were 0.78, 0.94 and 0.96. R1 detected 4% additional csPCa cases using MRDI compared to mpMRI, and R2 detected 20% extra csPCa cases using MRDI. Inter-observer agreement was significant only for MRDI (Cohen's Kappa = 0.4250, p = 0.004). The results of this study show the potential of MRDI to improve inter-observer variability and the detection of csPCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the proportion of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) found during follow‐up in patients with negative systematic biopsy (SB) followed by non‐suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and persistent clinical suspicion of PCa compared to the general population. Patients and Methods: A prospective study in a subgroup of patients from a multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with prior negative SB with a persistent elevated prostate‐specific antigen and/or suspicious digital rectal examination undergoing mpMRI. All patients with negative SB and Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) ≤2 on mpMRI entered biochemical follow‐up. Follow‐up data until December 2021 were collected by reviewing institutional hospital records and the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). The primary outcome was the observed number of csPCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4/International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) cases during follow‐up compared to the expected number in the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR]). Results: In total, 431 patients had non‐suspicious mpMRI and entered biochemical follow‐up. After a median (interquartile range) follow‐up of 41 (23–57) months, 38 patients were diagnosed with PCa, of whom 13 (3.0%) had csPCa. The SIR for csPCa was 4.3 (95% confidence interval 2.3–7.4; total excess of eight cases). A higher risk of a positive biopsy for (cs)PCa based on the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator and a suspicious repeat MRI (PI‐RADS ≥3) were significant predictive factors for csPCa. Conclusion: After negative prior biopsy and non‐suspicious mpMRI the risk of csPCa is low. However, compared to the general population, the risk of csPCa is increased despite the high negative predictive value of mpMRI. More research focusing on biochemical and image‐guided risk‐adapted diagnostic surveillance strategies is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The BULLSEYE trial is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial to test the hypothesis if 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC) to prolong the progression-free survival (PFS) and postpone the need for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The original study protocol was published in 2020. Here, we report amendments that have been made to the study protocol since the commencement of the trial.Changes in Methods and Materials: Two important changes were made to the original protocol: (1) the study will now use 177Lu-PSMA-617 instead of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T and (2) responding patients with residual disease on 18F-PSMA PET after the first two cycles are eligible to receive additional two cycles of 7.4 GBq 177Lu-PSMA in weeks 12 and 18, summing up to a maximum of 4 cycles if indicated. Therefore, patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 will also receive an interim 18F-PSMA PET scan in week 4 after cycle 2. The title of this study was modified to; "Lutetium-177-PSMA in Oligo-metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer" and is now partly supported by Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company.Conclusions: We present an update of the original study protocol prior to the completion of the study. Treatment arm patients that were included and received 177Lu-PSMA-I&T under the previous protocol will be replaced.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04443062 . First posted: June 23, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: • Identify, assure, and measure major sources of variability affecting the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis. • Develop strategies to control and minimize variations that impair pathway effectiveness including the performance of main players and team working. • Assure end-to-end quality of the diagnostic chain with robust multidisciplinary team working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS™ v2) is the product of an international collaboration of the American College of Radiology (ACR), European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR), and AdMetech Foundation. It is designed to promote global standardization and diminish variation in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination, and it is based on the best available evidence and expert consensus opinion. It establishes minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI, simplifies and standardizes terminology and content of reports, and provides assessment categories that summarize levels of suspicion or risk of clinically significant prostate cancer that can be used to assist selection of patients for biopsies and management. It is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and also to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Radiologia Brasileira is the property of Radiologia Brasileira and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The prognosis of prostate cancer patients with lymph node metastases so small they can only be visualized by new imaging techniques as MR lymphography (MRL) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognosis of prostate cancer patients with non-enlarged metastatic lymph nodes on MRL and to identify a subgroup of MRL-positive patients who might be candidates for curative treatment. Methods: The charts of 138 prostate cancer patients without enlarged lymph nodes on CT, in whom a pre-treatment MRL was performed were reviewed. Endpoints were distant metastases-free survival and overall survival. Relation between the following factors and outcome were investigated: T-stage, PSA value at diagnosis, Gleason score, diameter (short axis and long axis) of the largest MRL-positive lymph node, number of MRL-positive lymph nodes, the presence of extra-pelvic nodal disease, and the extent of resection of the positive lymph nodes. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate the survival functions. Results: Of the 138 patients, 24 (17%) had a positive MRL. Patients with a short axis of the largest positive lymph node of ⩽8 mm had a significantly better 5-year distant metastases-free (79% vs 16%) and overall survival (81% vs 36%) than patients with larger positive lymph nodes. This also accounted for patients with a largest long axis of ⩽10 mm (71% vs 20% and 73% vs 40%, respectively). Outcome was also better in patients in whom all positive lymph nodes had been resected. Conclusion: A selection of MRL-positive patients with a good prognosis could be identified, consisting of patients with small positive lymph nodes. In these patients, cure might be pursued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PCA3 (prostate cancer gene 3) and multiparametric 3 tesla MRI are new promising diagnostic tools in the detection of PCa. Our aim was to study the clinical value of the Progensa PCA3-test: its predictive value for biopsy outcome, Gleason score and MRI outcome. We evaluated, retrospectively, 591 patients who underwent a Progensa PCA3-test at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre between May 2006 and December 2009. Prostate biopsies were performed in 290 patients; a multiparametric 3 tesla MRI of the prostate was performed in 163/591 patients. The PCA3-score was correlated to biopsy results and MRI outcome. The results show that PCA3 was highly predictive for biopsy outcome (p < 0.001); there was no correlation with the Gleason score upon biopsy (p = 0.194). The PCA3-score of patients with a suspicious region for PCa on MRI was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than in patients with no suspicious region on MRI (52 vs. 21). In conclusion, PCA3 is a valuable diagnostic biomarker for PCa; it did not correlate with the Gleason score. Furthermore, multiparametric MRI outcome was significantly correlated with the PCA3-score. Thus, PCA3 could be used to select patients that require MRI. However, in patients with a negative PCA3 and high clinical suspicion of PCa, a multiparametric MRI should also be done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly being used earlier in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway in order to detect and localize disease. Its results can be used to help decide on the indication, type, and localization of a prostate biopsy for cancer diagnosis. In addition, mpMRI has the potential to contribute information on the characterization, or aggressiveness, of detected cancers including tumor progression over time. There is considerable variation in the way results of different MRI sequences are reported. We conducted a review of scoring systems that have been used in the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. This revealed that existing scoring and reporting systems differ in purpose, scale, and range. We evaluate these differences in this review. This first step in collating all methods of scoring and reporting mpMRI will ultimately lead to consensus approaches to develop a standardized reporting scheme that can be widely adopted and validated to ensure comparability of research outputs and optimal clinical practice. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:48-58. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the visibility of anatomical details and prostate cancer local staging performance of pelvic phased-array coil and integrated endorectal–pelvic phased-array coil MR imaging, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard. MR imaging was performed in 81 consecutive patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy, on a 1.5T scanner. T2-weighted fast spin echo images of the prostate were obtained using phased-array coil and endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils. Prospectively, one radiologist, retrospectively, two radiologists and two less experienced radiologists working in consensus, evaluated and scored all endorectal–pelvic phased-array imaging, with regard to visibility of anatomical details and local staging. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed. Anatomical details of the overall prostate were significantly better evaluated using the endorectal–pelvic phased-array coil setup ( P<0.05). The overall local staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the pelvic phased-array coil was 59% (48/81), 56% (20/36) and 62% (28/45), and for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils 83% (67/81), 64% (23/36) and 98% (44/45) respectively, for the prospective reader. Accuracy and specificity were significantly better with endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils ( P<0.05). The overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the retrospective readers were 78–79% ( P<0.05), 56–58% and 96%, for the endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils. Area under the ROC curve (Az) was significantly higher for endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils (Az=0.74) compared to pelvic phased-array coil (Az=0.57), for the prospective reader. The use of endorectal–pelvic phased array coils resulted in significant improvement of anatomic details, extracapsular extension accuracy and specificity. Overstaging is reduced significantly with equal sensitivity when an endorectal–pelvic phased-array coil is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our objective was to determine the influence of patient-, study design-, and imaging protocol characteristics on staging performance of MR imaging in prostate cancer. In an electronic literature search and review of bibliographies (January 1984 to May 2000) the articles selected included data on sensitivity and specificity for local staging. Subgroup analyses examined the influence of age, prostate specific antigen, tumor grade, hormonal pre-treatment, stage distribution, publication year, department of origin, verification bias, time between biopsy and MR imaging; consensus reading, study design, consecutive patients, sample size, histology preparation, imaging planes, fast spin echo, fat suppression, endorectal coil, field strength, resolution, glucagon, contrast agents, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Seventy-one articles and five abstracts were included, yielding 146 studies. Missing values were highly prevalent for patient characteristics and study design. Publication year, sample size, histologic gold standard, number of imaging planes, turbo spin echo, endorectal coil, and contrast agents influenced staging performance ( p=0.05). Due to poor reporting it was not possible to fully explain the heterogeneity of performance presented in the literature. Our results suggest that turbo spin echo, endorectal coil, and multiple imaging planes improve staging performance. Studies with small sample sizes may result in higher staging performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, there is increasing evidence showing a beneficial outcome (e.g. progression free survival; PFS) after metastases-directed therapy (MDT) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or targeted surgery for oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC). However, many patients do not qualify for these treatments due to prior interventions or tumor location. Such oligometastatic patients could benefit from radioligand therapy (RLT) with 177Lu-PSMA; a novel tumor targeting therapy for end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Especially because RLT could be more effective in low volume disease, such as the oligometastatic status, due to high uptake of radioligands in smaller lesions. To test the hypothesis that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment in oHSPC to prolong PFS and postpone the need for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), we initiated a multicenter randomized clinical trial. This is globally, the first prospective study using 177Lu-PSMA-I&T in a randomized multicenter setting.Methods& Design: This study compares 177Lu-PSMA-I&T MDT to the current standard of care (SOC); deferred ADT. Fifty-eight patients with oHSPC (≤5 metastases on PSMA PET) and high PSMA uptake (SUVmax > 15, partial volume corrected) on 18F-PSMA PET after prior surgery and/or EBRT and a PSA doubling time of < 6 months, will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The patients randomized to the interventional arm will be eligible for two cycles of 7.4GBq 177Lu-PSMA-I&T at a 6-week interval. After both cycles, patients are monitored every 3 weeks (including adverse events, QoL- and xerostomia questionnaires and laboratory testing) at the outpatient clinic. Twenty-four weeks after cycle two an end of study evaluation is planned together with another 18F-PSMA PET and (whole body) MRI. Patients in the SOC arm are eligible to receive 177Lu-PSMA-I&T after meeting the primary study objective, which is the fraction of patients who show disease progression during the study follow up. A second primary objective is the time to disease progression. Disease progression is defined as a 100% increase in PSA from baseline or clinical progression.Discussion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical study assessing the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T for patients with oHSPC.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04443062 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A risk-adapted ultrasound-directed pathway detected relevant cancers equally well in comparison to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway and suitable for prostate cancer diagnosis if prostate MRI is not available. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should be performed with MRI to minimize overdiagnosis. European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice. To compare the diagnostic performance of a risk-based ultrasound (US)-directed pathway (Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator [RPCRC] #3; US volume assessment) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway. This was a prospective multicenter study (MR-PROPER) with 1:1 allocation among 21 centers (US arm in 11 centers, MRI arm in ten). Biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age ≥50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0–50 ng/ml, ± abnormal digital rectal examination) were included. Biopsy-naïve men with elevated risk of prostate cancer, determined using RPCRC#3 in the US arm and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3–5 in the MRI arm, underwent systematic biopsies (US arm) or targeted biopsies (MRI arm). The primary outcome was the proportion of men with grade group (GG) ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of biopsies avoided and GG 1 cancers detected. Categorical (nonparametric) data were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 tests. A total of 1965 men were included in the intention-to-treat population (US arm n = 950, MRI arm n = 1015). The US and MRI pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well (235/950, 25% vs 239/1015, 24%; difference 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.6% to 5.0%; p = 0.5). The US pathway detected more GG 1 cancers than the MRI pathway (121/950, 13% vs 84/1015, 8.3%; difference 4.5%, 95% CI 1.8–7.2%; p < 0.01). The US pathway avoided fewer biopsies than the MRI pathway (403/950, 42% vs 559/1015, 55%; difference −13%, 95% CI −17% to −8.3%; p < 0.01). Among men with elevated risk, more GG ≥2 cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the US group (52% vs 43%; difference 9.2%, 95% CI 3.0–15%; p < 0.01). Risk-adapted US-directed and MRI-directed pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well. The risk-adapted US-directed pathway performs well for prostate cancer diagnosis if prostate MRI capacity and expertise are not available. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should preferably be performed using MRI, as this avoids more biopsies and detects fewer cases of GG 1 cancer. Among men with suspected prostate cancer, relevant cancers were equally well detected by risk-based pathways using either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy of the prostate. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should be performed with MRI to reduce unnecessary biopsies and detect fewer irrelevant cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, clinical use of novel advanced imaging modalities in prostate cancer detection, staging, and therapy has intensified and is currently reforming clinical guidelines. In the future, advanced imaging technologies will continue to develop and become even more accurate, which will offer new opportunities for improving patient selection, surgical treatment, and radiotherapy, with the potential to guide prostate cancer therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is large variability among radiologists in their detection of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). To reduce the interpretation variability and achieve optimal accuracy in assessing prostate mpMRI. How the interpretation of mpMRI can be optimized is demonstrated here. Whereas part 1 of the "surgery-in-motion" paper focused on acquisition, this paper shows the correlation between (ab)normal prostate anatomical structures and image characteristics on mpMRI, and how standardized interpretation according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) should be performed. This will be shown in individual patients. To detect csPCa, three mpMRI "components" are used: "anatomic" T2-weighted imaging, "cellular-density" diffusion-weighted imaging, and "vascularity" dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Based on PI-RADS v2, the accompanying video shows how mpMRI interpretation is performed. Finally, the role of mpMRI in detecting csPCa is briefly discussed and the main features of the recently introduced PI-RADS v2.1 are evaluated. With PI-RADS v2, it is possible to quantify normal and abnormal anatomical structures within the prostate based on its imaging features of the three mpMRI "components." With this knowledge, a more objective evaluation of the presence of a csPCa can be performed. However, there still remains quite some space to reduce interobserver variability. For understanding the interpretation of mpMRI according to PI-RADS v2, knowledge of the correlation between imaging and (ab)normal anatomical structures on the three mpMRI components is needed. This second surgery-in-motion contribution shows what structures can be recognized on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). How a radiologist performs his reading according to the so-called Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria is shown here. The main features of these criteria are summarized, and the role of prostate MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer is discussed briefly. This paper provides insight into what structures of normal and abnormal prostates are visible with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). To detect clinically significant prostate cancer, three mpMRI "components" must be used: "anatomic" T2-weighted imaging, "cellular density" diffusion-weighted imaging, and "vascularity" dynamic contrast–enhanced MRI. Based on these images, mpMRI interpretation according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System is done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 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. To 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. Based 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. Based on expert opinion and literature data, the three biopsy procedures are evaluated, and the important pros and cons are determined. The basic concept of each biopsy technique is reviewed, which would result in a clinical recommendation. This will be shown in individual patients. The 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. This 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. This 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. Fusion magnetic resonance-guided biopsy (MRGB) is the first choice in prostate biopsy suited for most patients. Direct in-bore MRGB should be used in selected, difficult cases (eg, small and anteriorly located lesions) and can be used as a problem solver in patients with a negative fusion-MRGB outcome and a persistent suspicion for high-grade prostate cancer. Cognitive MRGB seems to be best for sampling larger lesions and diffuse processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acquiring multiparametric magnetic resonance images of the prostate is not a simple "push-button" approach. To show how image acquisition of prostate multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) can be optimized. Image 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. Based on expert prostate MRI technologists (MRI radiographers) opinion, the optimal protocol is reviewed, and potential artifacts are determined. The 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. Although 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. This 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. In 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. Acquisition of magnetic resonance (MR) images is not a "push-button" technique. Only with adequate knowledge of modern state-of-the-art MR scanners, new optimized acquisition protocols, and optimal patient preparation, the MRI technologist (MRI radiographer) will make adequate prostate multiparametric MR images. Optimal images are needed for the radiologist to make interpretation better and easier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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. Objective Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3 ng/ml. Design, setting, and population A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). Intervention All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3 + 4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. Results and limitations The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p = 0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p < 0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (–89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27–36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15–28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. Conclusions In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. Patient summary We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis. Take Home Message In biopsy-naïve patients, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathway compared with a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy pathway significantly reduces the detection rate of insignificant prostate cancer without impairing the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. There is a potential to reduce the number of men requiring biopsy after nonsuspicious MRI to half, with an acceptable underdetection rate of 4%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Guidelines advise multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before repeat biopsy in patients with negative systematic biopsy (SB) and a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa), enabling MRI targeted biopsy (TB). No consensus exists regarding which of the three available techniques of TB should be preferred. Objective To compare detection rates of overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) for the three MRI-based TB techniques. Design, setting, and participants Multicenter randomised controlled trial, including 665 men with prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of PCa, conducted between 2014 and 2017 in two nonacademic teaching hospitals and an academic hospital. Intervention All patients underwent 3-T mpMRI evaluated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2. If imaging demonstrated PIRADS ≥3 lesions, patients were randomised 1:1:1 for one TB technique: MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion TB (FUS-TB), cognitive registration TRUS TB (COG-TB), or in-bore MRI TB (MRI-TB). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Primary (overall PCa detection) and secondary (csPCa detection [Gleason score ≥3 + 4]) outcomes were compared using Pearson chi-square test. Results and limitations On mpMRI, 234/665 (35%) patients had PIRADS ≥3 lesions and underwent TB. There were no significant differences in the detection rates of overall PCa (FUS-TB 49%, COG-TB 44%, MRI-TB 55%, p = 0.4). PCa detection rate differences were −5% between FUS-TB and MRI-TB (p = 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] −21% to 11%), 6% between FUS-TB and COG-TB (p = 0.5, 95% CI −10% to 21%), and −11% between COG-TB and MRI-TB (p = 0.17, 95% CI −26% to 5%). There were no significant differences in the detection rates of csPCa (FUS-TB 34%, COG-TB 33%, MRI-TB 33%, p > 0.9). Differences in csPCa detection rates were 2% between FUS-TB and MRI-TB (p = 0.8, 95% CI −13% to 16%), 1% between FUS-TB and COG-TB (p > 0.9, 95% CI −14% to 16%), and 1% between COG-TB and MRI-TB (p > 0.9, 95% CI −14% to 16%). The main study limitation was a low rate of PIRADS ≥3 lesions on mpMRI, causing underpowering for primary outcome. Conclusions We found no significant differences in the detection rates of (cs)PCa among the three MRI-based TB techniques. Patient summary In this study, we compared the detection rates of (aggressive) prostate cancer among men with prior negative biopsies and a persistent suspicion of cancer using three different techniques of targeted biopsy based on magnetic resonance imaging. We found no significant differences in the detection rates of (aggressive) prostate cancer among the three techniques. Take Home Message In a repeat biopsy setting, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has a high detection rate of (clinically significant) prostate cancer. There were no significant differences in the detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer among three techniques of mpMRI-based targeted biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The burden of prostate cancer is increasing. Therefore, we need to implement a contemporary, organized, risk-stratified program for early detection to reduce both the harm from the disease and potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment, while avoiding underdiagnosis to considerably improve the harm-to-benefit ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB). Objective To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa. Evidence acquisition We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90–1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02–1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35–0.63]). There was a significant advantage ( p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB ( p = 0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB ( p = 0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed. Conclusions MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings. Patient summary Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Correct assessment of tumour stage is crucial for prostate cancer (PCa) management. Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local PCa staging and explore the influence of different imaging protocols. Evidence acquisition We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 2000 up to August 2014. We included studies that used MRI for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE; T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI; T3b), or overall stage T3 PCa, with prostatectomy as the reference standard. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool by two independent reviewers. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 tables were obtained, and patient, study, and imaging characteristics were extracted. Accuracy was reported for the most experienced or first reader. Results were pooled and plotted in summary receiver operating characteristics plots. Evidence synthesis A total of 75 studies (9796 patients) could be analysed. Pooled data for ECE (45 studies, 5681 patients), SVI (34 studies, 5677 patients), and overall stage T3 detection (38 studies, 4001 patients) showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.64) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88–0.93), 0.58 (95% CI 0.47–0.68) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.97), and 0.61 (95% CI 0.54–0.67) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.91), respectively. Functional imaging in addition to T2-weighted imaging and use of higher field strengths (3 T) improved sensitivity for ECE and SVI. ECE sensitivity was not improved by endorectal coil use. Conclusions MRI has high specificity but poor and heterogeneous sensitivity for local PCa staging. An endorectal coil showed no additional benefit for ECE detection, but slightly improved sensitivity for SVI detection. Higher field strengths and the use of functional imaging techniques can slightly improve sensitivity. Patient summary We pooled the results from all previous studies that evaluated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of tumour growth outside the prostate. MRI is not sensitive enough to find all tumours with extraprostatic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) visibility of magnetic resonance (MR) lesions. Methods Data from 34 patients with 56 MR lesions and prostatectomy were used. Five observers localized and determined TRUS visibility during retrospective fusion. Visibility was correlated to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) and Gleason scores. Results TRUS visibility occurred in 43% of all MR lesions and in 62% of PIRADS 5 lesions. Visible lesions had a significantly lower localization variability. On prostatectomy, 58% of the TRUS-visible lesions had a Gleason 4 or 5 component. Conclusions Almost half of the MR lesions were visible on TRUS. TRUS-visible lesions were more aggressive than TRUS-invisible lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context In 2012, an expert panel of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) published the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer (PC) detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI). Since then, many centers have reported their experiences. Purpose To review the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS for PC detection with mp-MRI. Evidence acquisition We searched Medline and Embase up to March 20, 2014. We included diagnostic accuracy studies since 2012 that used PI-RADS with mp-MRI for PC detection in men, using prostatectomy or biopsy as the reference standard. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool by two independent reviewers. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained from the included studies, and test characteristics including sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results were pooled and plotted in a summary receiver operating characteristics plot. Evidence synthesis Fourteen studies (1785 patients) could be analyzed. The pooled data showed sensitivity of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.84) and specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.68–0.86) for PC detection, with negative predictive values ranging from 0.58 to 0.95. Sensitivity analysis revealed pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.72–0.89) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.67–0.92) in studies with correct use of PI-RADS (ie, clear description in the methodology and no adjustment of criteria). For studies with a less strict or adjusted use of PI-RADS criteria, or unclear description of the methodology, had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.62–0.82) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI 0.61–0.84). Conclusions In patients for whom PC is suspected, PI-RADS appears to have good diagnostic accuracy in PC detection, but no recommendation regarding the best threshold can be provided because of heterogeneity. Patient summary Pooling of results from all previous studies that used a relatively new 5-point scoring system for prostate magnetic resonance imaging showed that this scoring system appears to be able to detect prostate cancer accurately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The current diagnostic strategy using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) raises concerns regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Interest in integrating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy (MRGB) into the diagnostic pathway to reduce overdiagnosis and improve grading is gaining ground, but it remains uncertain whether this image-based strategy is cost-effective. Objective To determine the cost-effectiveness of multiparametric MRI and MRGB compared with TRUSGB. Design, setting, and participants A combined decision tree and Markov model for men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (>4 ng/ml) was developed. Input data were derived from systematic literature searches, meta-analyses, and expert opinion. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health care costs of both strategies were modelled over 10 yr after initial suspicion of PCa. Probabilistic and threshold analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. Results and limitations Despite uncertainty around the presented cost-effectiveness estimates, our results suggest that the MRI strategy is cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Expected costs per patient were €2423 for the MRI strategy and €2392 for the TRUSGB strategy. Corresponding QALYs were higher for the MRI strategy (7.00 versus 6.90), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €323 per QALY. Threshold analysis revealed that MRI is cost-effective when sensitivity of MRGB is ≥20%. The probability that the MRI strategy is cost-effective is around 80% at willingness to pay thresholds higher than €2000 per QALY. Conclusions Total costs of the MRI strategy are almost equal with the standard of care, while reduction of overdiagnosis and overtreatment with the MRI strategy leads to an improvement in quality of life. Patient summary We compared costs and quality of life (QoL) of the standard "blind" diagnostic technique with an image-based technique for men with suspicion of prostate cancer. Our results suggest that costs were comparable, with higher QoL for the image-based technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The current diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) uses transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy (TRUSGB). TRUSGB leads to sampling errors causing delayed diagnosis, overdetection of indolent PCa, and misclassification. Advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) suggest that imaging and selective magnetic resonance (MR)–guided biopsy (MRGB) may be superior to TRUSGB. Objective: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathway with TRUSGB. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 223 consecutive biopsy-naive men referred to a urologist with elevated prostate-specific antigen participated in a single-institution, prospective, investigator-blinded, diagnostic study from July 2012 through January 2013. Intervention: All participants had mpMRI and TRUSGB. Men with equivocal or suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was PCa detection. Secondary outcomes were histopathologic details of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens, adverse events, and MRI reader performance. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values (NPVs), and positive predictive values were estimated and basic statistics presented by number (percentage) or median (interquartile range). Results and limitations: Of 223 men, 142 (63.7%) had PCa. TRUSGB detected 126 cases of PCa in 223 men (56.5%) including 47 (37.3%) classed as low risk. MRGB detected 99 cases of PCa in 142 men (69.7%) with equivocal or suspicious mpMRI, of which 6 (6.1%) were low risk. The MRGB pathway reduced the need for biopsy by 51%, decreased the diagnosis of low-risk PCa by 89.4%, and increased the detection of intermediate/high-risk PCa by 17.7%. The estimated NPVs of TRUSGB and MRGB for intermediate/high-risk disease were 71.9% and 96.9%, respectively. The main limitation is the lack of long follow-up. Conclusions: We found that mpMRI/MRGB reduces the detection of low-risk PCa and reduces the number of men requiring biopsy while improving the overall rate of detection of intermediate/high-risk PCa. Patient summary: We compared the results of standard prostate biopsies with a magnetic resonance (MR) image–based targeted biopsy diagnostic pathway in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Our results suggest patient benefits of the MR pathway. Follow-up of negative investigations is required. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To describe the results of 3 rounds of diagnostic testing and linkage to the Dutch Cancer Registry for men with an initial prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) score ≥100. Methods: Within an earlier reported comparative study of PCA3 vs prostate-specific antigen in a prescreened population, 90 men with a PCA3 score ≥100 were identified and underwent biopsy, 28 prostate cancers (PCs) were found, 62 men remained at risk of a diagnosis of PC. All men were offered repeat testing; 6 PCs were found in 20 men at rebiopsy. Men with at least 1 negative biopsy (n = 56) were invited to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies and MRI-guided biopsies if indicated. Linkage to the Dutch Cancer Registry after 2.8 years of follow-up was performed for men with negative biopsies. Results: Of the 56 men at risk, 28 agreed to participate in further testing. They were offered MRI studies; only 7 men agreed, and in 2, suspicious lesions were found and biopsies carried out. Only 1 PC was diagnosed and classified as T1c, Gleason 3 + 3 = 6. The overall findings of 3 rounds of testing and of linkage to the cancer registry show that eventually 35 PCs were detected in 90 men with PCA3 scores ≥100 (positive predictive value 38.9%). Conclusion: Finding no PC despite extended diagnostic efforts in many men with initial PCA3 scores ≥100 is unexpected and might be clinically relevant. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: A challenge in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) is the accurate assessment of aggressiveness. Objective: To validate the performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate at 3 tesla (T) for the assessment of PCa aggressiveness, with prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard. Design, settings, and participants: A total of 45 patients with PCa scheduled for prostatectomy were included. This study was approved by the institutional review board; the need for informed consent was waived. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Subjects underwent a clinical MRI protocol including DCE-MRI. Blinded to DCE-images, PCa was indicated on T2-weighted images based on histopathology results from prostatectomy specimens with the use of anatomical landmarks for the precise localization of the tumor. PCa was classified as low-, intermediate-, or high-grade, according to Gleason score. DCE-images were used as an overlay on T2-weighted images; mean and quartile values from semi-quantitative and pharmacokinetic model parameters were extracted per tumor region. Statistical analysis included Spearman's ρ, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. Results and limitations: Significant differences were seen for the mean and 75th percentile (p75) values of wash-in (p = 0.024 and p = 0.017, respectively), mean wash-out (p = 0.044), and p75 of transfer constant (K trans) (p = 0.035), all between low-grade and high-grade PCa in the peripheral zone. ROC analysis revealed the best discriminating performance between low-grade versus intermediate-grade plus high-grade PCa in the peripheral zone for p75 of wash-in, K trans, and rate constant (K ep) (area under the curve: 0.72). Due to a limited number of tumors in the transition zone, a definitive conclusion for this region of the prostate could not be drawn. Conclusions: Quantitative parameters (K trans and K ep) and semi-quantitative parameters (wash-in and wash-out) derived from DCE-MRI at 3 T have the potential to assess the aggressiveness of PCa in the peripheral zone. P75 of wash-in, K trans, and K ep offer the best possibility to discriminate low-grade from intermediate-grade plus high-grade PCa. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the pattern of lymph node spread on magnetic resonance lymphography (MRL) in prostate cancer patients and compare this pattern to the clinical target volume for elective pelvis irradiation as defined by the radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG-CTV). Methods and materials: The charts of 60 intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients with non-enlarged positive lymph nodes on MRL were reviewed. Positive lymph nodes were assigned to a lymph node region according to the guidelines for delineation of the RTOG-CTV. Five lymph node regions outside this RTOG-CTV were defined: the para-aortal, proximal common iliac, pararectal, paravesical and inguinal region. Results: Fifty-three percent of the patients had an MRL-positive lymph node in a lymph node region outside the RTOG-CTV. The most frequently involved aberrant sites were the proximal common iliac, the pararectal and para-aortal region, which were affected in 30%, 25% and 18% respectively. Conclusion: More than half of the patients had an MRL-positive lymph node outside the RTOG-CTV. To reduce geographical miss while minimizing the toxicity of radiotherapy, image based definition of an individual target volume seems to be necessary. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To determine the clinical value of two novel molecular imaging techniques: 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and ferumoxtran-10 enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (magnetic resonance lymphography [MRL]) for lymph node (LN) treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Therefore, we evaluated the ability of PET/CT and MRL to assess the number, size, and location of LN metastases in patients with primary or recurrent PCa. Methods and Materials: A total of 29 patients underwent MRL and PET/CT for LN evaluation. The MRL and PET/CT data were analyzed independently. The number, size, and location of the LN metastases were determined. The location was described as within or outside the standard clinical target volume for elective pelvic irradiation as defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Subsequently, the results from MRL and PET/CT were compared. Results: Of the 738 LNs visible on MRL, 151 were positive in 23 of 29 patients. Of the 132 LNs visible on PET/CT, 34 were positive in 13 of 29 patients. MRL detected significantly more positive LNs (p < 0.001) in more patients than PET/CT (p = 0.002). The mean diameter of the detected suspicious LNs on MRL was significantly smaller than those detected by PET/CT, 4.9 mm and 8.4 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). In 14 (61%) of 23 patients, suspicious LNs were found outside the clinical target volume with MRL and in 4 (31%) of 13 patients with PET/CT. Conclusion: In patients with PCa, both molecular imaging techniques, MRL and 11C-choline PET/CT, can detect LNs suspicious for metastasis, irrespective of the existing size and shape criteria for CT and conventional magnetic resonance imaging. On MRL and PET/CT, 61% and 31% of the suspicious LNs were located outside the conventional clinical target volume. Therefore, these techniques could help to individualize treatment selection and enable image-guided radiotherapy for patients with PCa LN metastases. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and one or more previous negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy sessions are subject to diagnostic uncertainty due to TRUS-biopsy undersampling. Magnetic resonance (MR)–guided biopsy (MRGB) has shown high prostate cancer (PCa)–detection rates in studies with limited patient numbers. Objective: Determine the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa for MRGB of cancer-suspicious regions (CSRs) on 3-T multiparametric MR imaging (MP-MRI) in patients with elevated PSA and one or more negative TRUS-biopsy sessions. Design, setting, and participants: Of 844 patients who underwent 3-T MP-MRI in our referral centre between March 2008 and February 2011, 438 consecutive patients with a PSA >4.0 ng/ml and one negative TRUS-biopsy session or more were included. MRGB was performed in 265 patients. Exclusion criteria were existent PCa, endorectal coil use, and MP-MRI for indications other than cancer detection. Intervention: Patients underwent MRGB of MP-MRI CSRs. Measurements: (Clinically significant) MRGB cancer-detection rates were determined. Clinically significant cancer was defined by accepted (i.a. Epstein and d’Amico) criteria based on PSA, Gleason score, stage, and tumour volume. Follow-up PSA and histopathology were collected. Sensitivity analysis was performed for patients with MP-MRI CSRs without MRGB. Results and limitations: In a total of 117 patients, cancer was detected with MRGB (n =108) or after negative MRGB (n =9). PCa was detected in 108 of 438 patients (25%) and in 41% (108 of 265) of MRGB patients. The majority of detected cancers (87%) were clinically significant. Clinically significant cancers were detected in seven of nine (78%) negative MRGB patients in whom PCa was detected during follow-up. Sensitivity analysis resulted in increased cancer detection (47–56%). Complications occurred in 0.2% of patients (5 of 265). Conclusions: In patients with elevated PSA and one or more negative TRUS-biopsy sessions, MRGB of MP-MRI CSRs had a PCa-detection rate of 41%. The majority of detected cancers were clinically significant (87%). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]