Search

Objectives: Triple-negative (ER-/PR-/HER2-) breast carcinomas (TNBC) are aggressive tumours with underexplored imaging features. This study investigates whether their vascular characteristics as assessed by dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) MRI are distinct from the prognostically more favourable ER+/PR+/HER2- cancers.Methods: Patients with primary breast cancer underwent MRI before neoadjuvant chemotherapy and were identified as ER-/PR-/HER2- or ER+/PR+/HER2- from core biopsy specimens. MRI parameters reflecting tissue perfusion, permeability, and extracellular leakage space were measured. Values for inflow transfer constant (K(trans)), outflow rate constant (k(ep)), leakage space (v(e)), area under the gadolinium curve (IAUGC(60) ), relative blood volume (rBV) and flow (rBF), and Mean Transit Time (MTT) were compared across receptor status and with known prognostic variables.Results: Thirty seven patients were assessable in total (16 ER-/PR-/HER2-, 21 ER+/PR+/HER2-). Lower v(e) (p = 0.001), shorter MTT (p = 0.007) and higher k(ep) values (p = 0.044) were observed in TNBC. v(e) was lower across all T stages, node-negative (p = 0.004) and low-grade TNBC (p = 0.037). v(e) was the best predictor of triple negativity (ROC AUC 0.80).Conclusions: TNBC possess characteristic features on imaging, with lower extracellular space (higher cell density) and higher contrast agent wash-out rate (higher vascular permeability) suggesting a distinctive phenotype detectable by MRI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose was to determine the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in a two-centre phase I clinical trial; and to track ADC changes in response to the sequential administration of the vascular disrupting agent, combretastatin A4 phosphate (CA4P), and the anti-angiogenic drug, bevacizumab. Sixteen patients with solid tumours received CA4P and bevacizumab treatment. Echo-planar diffusion-weighted MRI was performed using six b values (b = 0-750 s/mm(2)) before (x2), and at 3 and 72 h after a first dose of CA4P. Bevacizumab was given 4 h after a second dose of CA4P, and imaging performed 3 h post CA4P and 72 h after bevacizumab treatment. The coefficient of repeatability (r) of ADC total (all b values), ADC high (b = 100-750) and ADC low (b = 0-100) was calculated by Bland-Altman analysis. The ADC total and ADC high showed good measurement reproducibility (r% = 13.3, 14.1). There was poor reproducibility of the perfusion-sensitive ADC low (r% = 62.5). Significant increases in the median ADC total and ADC high occurred at 3 h after the second dose of CA4P (p < 0.05). ADC measurements were highly reproducible in a two-centre clinical trial setting and appear promising for evaluating the effects of drugs that target tumour vasculature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatic metastases are arterially supplied, resulting in an elevated hepatic perfusion index (HPI). The purpose of this study was to use dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging to quantify the HPI of metastases and the liver before and after treatment with a novel antiangiogenic drug. Ten patients with known metastatic liver disease underwent DCE-MR studies. HPIs of metastases and whole liver were derived using regions of interest (ROIs) and calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis from quantified changes in gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) concentration. The HPI measurement error prior to treatment was derived by the Bland-Altman analysis. The median HPI before and after treatment with antiangiogenic drug BIBF 1120 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Prior to treatment, the median HPI of metastases, 0.75 +/- 0.14, was significantly higher than that of the whole liver, 0.66 +/- 0.16 (p < 0.01). Bland-Altman reproducibility coefficients of the median HPI from metastases and whole liver were 13.0 and 5.1% respectively. The median HPI of metastases decreased significantly at 28 days after treatment with BIBF 1120 (p < 0.05). This pilot study demonstrates that HPI determined using quantified Gd-DTPA concentration is reproducible and may be useful for monitoring antiangiogenic treatment response of hepatic metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Angiogenesis is a key factor in the growth and dissemination of colorectal cancer, with significant implications for its clinical management. Previous trials have provided proof-of-principle that inhibition of angiogenesis has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of treatment for this disease. Characterisation of the angiogenic status of the tumour on an individual patient basis could allow for a more targeted approach to treatment. In vivo imaging techniques that assess tumour microvessel function have the potential to improve the management of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. This review focuses on MRI and CT assessment of colorectal cancer angiogenesis. We discuss the effects that these two techniques have had in the assessment of this disease, including tumour staging and therapeutic assessment. Their comparability with other imaging techniques, in particular ultrasound, and their limitations are also addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: We assessed the agreement between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and imaging responses using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wbMRI). Our aim was to explore the potential prognostic value of PSA and wbMRI responses in metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) and castration-resistant PC (mCRPC)., Methods: wbMRI was prospectively performed in 37 patients with mHNPC and 51 with mCRPC before and after 6-12 mo of androgen deprivation therapy and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). Imaging responses were defined according to the Metastasis Reporting and Data System for PC (MET-RADS-P) criteria. A PSA response was defined as PSA ≤0.2 ng/ml in mHNPC and a ≥50% decrease from the pretreatment level in mCRPC. Agreement between PSA and wbMRI responses was assessed using Cohen's κ. The association between time to subsequent treatment and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Cox regression analysis., Key Findings and Limitations: Agreement between PSA and wbMRI responses was fair in mHNPC (κ = 0.30) but none to slight in mCRPC (κ = 0.15). In mHNPC, patients with a PSA or wbMRI response were less likely to receive subsequent treatments; wbMRI progression was associated with a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio 8.59; p = 0.002). In mCRPC, two-thirds of patients with a PSA response showed progression on wbMRI; neither PSA nor wbMRI progression changed the likelihood of starting a subsequent treatment or the risk of death., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: In mHNPC, wbMRI progression was associated with a higher risk of needing subsequent treatment and shorter OS., Patient Summary: We evaluated the agreement between routine PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test results and whole-body MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans for assessing the response of metastatic prostate cancer to treatment. There was disagreement between the PSA and MRI results, mainly for patients with cancer that was resistant to hormone-based treatment. Combining PSA with whole-body MRI might provide a more accurate picture of the response of advanced prostate cancer to treatment., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

MRI has gained prominence in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) being widely used for cancer detection. Beyond PI-RADS, other MRI-based scoring tools have emerged to address broader aspects within the PCa domain. However, the multitude of available MRI-based grading systems has led to inconsistencies in their application within clinical workflows. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) assesses the likelihood of clinically significant radiological changes of PCa during active surveillance, and the Prostate Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) scoring system evaluates the risk of local recurrence after whole-gland therapies with curative intent. Underlying any system is the requirement to assess image quality using the Prostate Imaging Quality Scoring System (PI-QUAL). This article offers practicing radiologists a comprehensive overview of currently available scoring systems with clinical evidence supporting their use for managing PCa patients to enhance consistency in interpretation and facilitate effective communication with referring clinicians. KEY POINTS: Assessing image quality is essential for all prostate MRI interpretations and the PI-QUAL score represents  the standardized tool for this purpose. Current urological clinical guidelines for prostate cancer diagnosis and localization recommend adhering to the PI-RADS recommendations. The PRECISE and PI-RR scoring systems can be used for assessing radiological changes of prostate cancer during active surveillance and the likelihood of local recurrence after radical treatments respectively., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Intensification of targeted biopsy (TBx) around a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible lesion with regional biopsy (RBx) could obviate the need for systematic biopsy (SBx). We aimed to compare the detection yields of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)-defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2-between TBx + RBx and the reference standard (TBx + SBx)., Methods: RBx was defined as perilesional or ipsilateral biopsy. A literature search was conducted up to September 2023 using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Included studies were eligible when presenting data from SBx, TBx, and TBx + RBx cores and their detection yields. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies., Key Findings and Limitations: Twenty-one studies were included for a meta-analysis. The overall detection yield of csPCa was not statistically different between TBx + SBX and TBx + RBx (46.1% vs 44.2%; odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.16, p = 0.07); similar findings were found also for ISUP grade group ≥3 prostate cancer (PCa; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.22, p = 0.43) and in different subgroup analyses. TBx + SBx was associated with higher cancer detection of ISUP grade group 1 PCa (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.008). The main limitations include the retrospective nature of most of the selected studies, heterogeneity of RBx definition, and template., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Our study supports the use of the TBx + RBx template in the early detection pathway for the detection of csPCa. SBx can be omitted when targeting lesions visible on MRI., Patient Summary: A prostate biopsy strategy consisting of taking biopsy in and around an magnetic resonance imaging-visible lesion reduces the risk of detecting indolent prostate cancers without affecting the detection of aggressive tumours., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis., Methods: An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3-5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0-100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard., Key Findings and Limitations: Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819-0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826-0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8-92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8-93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024., Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists")., Key Findings and Limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To develop and test zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density (sPSAD) combined with PI-RADS to guide prostate biopsy decision strategies (BDS)., Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients, who underwent prostate MRI and biopsy (01/2012-10/2018). The whole gland and transition zone (TZ) were segmented at MRI using a retrained deep learning system (DLS; nnU-Net) to calculate PSAD and sPSAD, respectively. Additionally, sPSAD and PI-RADS were combined in a BDS, and diagnostic performances to detect Grade Group ≥ 2 (GG ≥ 2) prostate cancer were compared. Patient-based cancer detection using sPSAD was assessed by bootstrapping with 1000 repetitions and reported as area under the curve (AUC). Clinical utility of the BDS was tested in the hold-out test set using decision curve analysis. Statistics included nonparametric DeLong test for AUCs and Fisher-Yates test for remaining performance metrics., Results: A total of 1604 patients aged 67 (interquartile range, 61-73) with 48% GG ≥ 2 prevalence (774/1604) were evaluated. By employing DLS-based prostate and TZ volumes (DICE coefficients of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.97) and 0.84 (0.70-0.99)), GG ≥ 2 detection using PSAD was inferior to sPSAD (AUC, 0.71 (0.68-0.74)/0.73 (0.70-0.76); p < 0.001). Combining PI-RADS with sPSAD, GG ≥ 2 detection specificity doubled from 18% (10-20%) to 43% (30-44%; p < 0.001) with similar sensitivity (93% (89-96%)/97% (94-99%); p = 0.052), when biopsies were taken in PI-RADS 4-5 and 3 only if sPSAD was ≥ 0.42 ng/mL/cc as compared to all PI-RADS 3-5 cases. Additionally, using the sPSAD-based BDS, false positives were reduced by 25% (123 (104-142)/165 (146-185); p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Using sPSAD to guide biopsy decisions in PI-RADS 3 lesions can reduce false positives at MRI while maintaining high sensitivity for GG ≥ 2 cancers., Clinical Relevance Statement: Transition zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density can improve the accuracy of prostate cancer detection compared to MRI assessments alone, by lowering false-positive cases without significantly missing men with ISUP GG ≥ 2 cancers., Key Points: • Prostate biopsy decision strategies using PI-RADS at MRI are limited by a substantial proportion of false positives, not yielding grade group ≥ 2 prostate cancer. • PI-RADS combined with transition zone (TZ)-specific prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) decreased the number of unproductive biopsies by 25% compared to PI-RADS only. • TZ-specific PSAD also improved the specificity of MRI-directed biopsies by 9% compared to the whole gland PSAD, while showing identical sensitivity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

MRI retains its ability to reduce the harm of prostate biopsies by decreasing biopsy rates and the detection of indolent cancers in population-based screening studies aiming to find clinically significant prostate cancers. Limitations of low positive predictive values and high reader variability in diagnostic performance require optimisations in patient selection, imaging protocols, interpretation standards, diagnostic thresholds, and biopsy methods. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy could come about through emerging technologies like risk calculators and polygenic risk scores to select men for MRI. Furthermore, artificial intelligence and workflow optimisations focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway, quality control, and assurance measures will improve MRI variability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI significantly reduces harm in prostate cancer screening, lowering unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers. MRI maintains the effective detection of high-grade cancers, thus improving the overall benefit-to-harm ratio in population-based screenings with or without using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for patient selection. KEY POINTS: • The use of MRI enables the harm reduction benefits seen in individual early cancer detection to be extended to both risk-stratified and non-stratified prostate cancer screening populations. • MRI limitations include a low positive predictive value and imperfect reader variability, which require standardising interpretations, biopsy methods, and integration into a quality diagnostic pathway. • Current evidence is based on one-time point use of MRI in screening; MRI effectiveness in multiple rounds of screening is not well-documented., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

Background and Objective: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty., Methods: A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring., Key Findings and Limitations: Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the image quality of deep learning accelerated whole-body (WB) with conventional diffusion sequences., Methods: Fifty consecutive patients with bone marrow cancer underwent WB-MRI. Two experts compared axial b900 s/mm 2 and the corresponding maximum intensity projections (MIP) of deep resolve boost (DRB) accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences (time of acquisition: 6:42 min) against conventional sequences (time of acquisition: 14 min). Readers assessed paired images for noise, artefacts, signal fat suppression, and lesion conspicuity using Likert scales, also expressing their overall subjective preference. Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR and CNR) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of normal tissues and cancer lesions were statistically compared., Results: Overall, radiologists preferred either axial DRB b900 and/or corresponding MIP images in almost 80% of the patients, particularly in patients with a high body-mass index (BMI > 25 kg/m 2 ). In qualitative assessments, axial DRB images were preferred (preferred/strongly preferred) in 56-100% of cases, whereas DRB MIP images were favoured in 52-96% of cases. DRB-SNR/CNR was higher in all normal tissues (p < 0.05). For cancer lesions, the DRB-SNR was higher (p < 0.001), but the CNR was not different. DRB-ADC values were significantly higher for the brain and psoas muscles, but not for cancer lesions (mean difference: + 53 µm 2 /s). Inter-class correlation coefficient analysis showed good to excellent agreement (95% CI 0.75-0.93)., Conclusion: DRB sequences produce higher-quality axial DWI, resulting in improved MIPs and significantly reduced acquisition times. However, differences in the ADC values of normal tissues need to be considered., Clinical Relevance Statement: Deep learning accelerated diffusion sequences produce high-quality axial images and MIP at reduced acquisition times. This advancement could enable the increased adoption of Whole Body-MRI for the evaluation of patients with bone marrow cancer., Key Points: Deep learning reconstruction enables a more than 50% reduction in acquisition time for WB diffusion sequences. DRB images were preferred by radiologists in almost 80% of cases due to fewer artefacts, improved background signal suppression, higher signal-to-noise ratio, and increased lesion conspicuity in patients with higher body mass index. Cancer lesion diffusivity from DRB images was not different from conventional sequences., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Guarantor The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Anwar R. Padhani. Conflict of interest Andrea Ponsiglione holds the position of Junior Deputy Editor at European Radiology,  but he did not participate in the selection nor review processes. Thomas Benkert serves as Product Manager for MR Neuro Applications at Siemens Healthineers and has been involved in providing technical consultation. He had no access to patient data and was not involved in any process of the study methodology and analysis. Statistics and biometry One of the authors (A.M.P.) has significant statistical expertise. Informed consent As per the clinical routine, written informed consent from all patients for WB-MRI examination as they were clinically indicated. Ethical approval This was a prospective evaluation of a pre-commercial product as a new clinical technology introduction and so was approved by the local ethics committee as a service quality improvement audit activity. Methodology ProspectivePerformed at one institution, (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate aids risk stratification of patients with elevated PSA levels. Although most clinically significant prostate cancers are detected by mpMRI, insignificant cancers are less evident. Thus, multiple international prostate cancer guidelines now endorse routine use of prostate MRI as a secondary screening test before prostate biopsy. Nonetheless, management of patients with negative mpMRI results (defined as PI-RADS category 1 or 2) remains unclear. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review summarizes the available literature on patients with an elevated screening PSA level and a negative prostate mpMRI result and provides guidance for these patients' management. Systematic biopsy should not be routinely performed after a negative mpMRI examination in patients at average risk but should be considered in patients at high risk. In patients who undergo PSA screening rather than systematic biopsy after negative mpMRI, clear triggers should be established for when to perform a repeat MRI examination. Patients with a negative MRI result followed by negative biopsy should follow their health care practitioners' preferred guidelines concerning subsequent PSA screening for the patient's risk level. Insufficient high-level data exist to support routine use of adjunctive serum or urine biomarkers, artificial intelligence, or PSMA PET to determine the need for prostate biopsy after a negative mpMRI examination.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale., Methods: In this international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5-10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4-6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of non-inferiority (considering a margin of 0·05) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if non-inferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341., Findings: Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·87-0·94; p<0·0001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 0·86 (0·83-0·89), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 0·02. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6·8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57·7%, 95% CI 51·6-63·3), or 50·4% fewer false-positive results and 20·0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89·4%, 95% CI 85·3-92·9). In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non-inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (68·9% [95% CI 65·3-72·4] vs 69·0% [65·5-72·5]) at the same sensitivity (96·1%, 94·0-98·2) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (-0·04) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-0·05) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p<0·001)., Interpretation: An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system., Funding: Health~Holland and EU Horizon 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NAO provides statistical consultation to Siemens Healthineers, Takeda, and Qure, and serves as a committee member of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network, the Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial, and the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Imaging Steering Committee (Bethesda, MD, USA). AB has been a consultant and advisor for Astellas and Bayer; board membership, officer, and trustee for Glactone Pharma, and LIDDS Pharma; has received lecture honoraria for Accord, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, and Merck; has participated in trials run by Astellas, Ferring, and Janssen; and holds stock in Glactone Pharma, LIDDS Pharma, Noviga, and WntResearch. BvG holds stocks in and is a founder of Thirona. JKC has received research funding from GE Healthcare and Genentech and is the co-inventor of software that has been licensed to Siloam Vision. JKC has equity ownership in Siloam Vision. GS has been an advisory board member of Exact Imaging and Angiogenesis and has received lecture honorarium from Hitachi. OR has received funding for travel expenses from Philips Medical Systems. ARP has received research funding from Siemens Healthineers, holds stocks in Lucida Medical, and has received lecture honoraria for Siemens Healthineers and Bayer. HH has received research funding from Siemens Healthineers and Canon Medical Systems. GV has been a clinical advisory board member of AGFA Healthcare. VK has received lecture honoraria on prostate cancer diagnosis from the European Association of Urology and Singapore Urology Association and has received research funding from Prostate Cancer UK and the John Black Charitable Foundation. DB has received lecture honorarium from Bayer Vital and holds stocks in NVIDIA, Microsoft, and MSCI-World ETF. RvdB has been an advisory board member for Janssen; has received lecture honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, and MSD; has received research support from Astellas and Janssen; and has participated in trials run by Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

BACKGROUND. PI-RADS incorporates rules by which ancillary sequence findings upgrade a dominant score to a higher final category. Evidence on the upgrading rules' impact on diagnostic pathways remains scarce. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the clinical net benefit of the PI-RADS upgrading rules in MRI-directed diagnostic pathways. METHODS. This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained clinical registry. The study included patients without known prostate cancer who underwent prostate MRI followed by prostate biopsy from January 2016 to May 2020. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 2 and higher. csPCa detection was compared between dominant (i.e., no upgrade rule applied) and upgraded lesions. Decision-curve analysis was used to compare the net benefit, considering the trade-off of csPCa detection and biopsy avoidance, of MRI-directed pathways in scenarios considering and disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules. These included a biopsy-all pathway, MRI-focused pathway (no biopsy for PI-RADS ≤ 2), and risk-based pathway (use of PSA density ≥ 0.15 ng/mL 2 to select patients with PI-RADS ≤ 3 for biopsy). RESULTS. The sample comprised 716 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 93 with a PI-RADS ≤ 2 examination, 623 with total of 780 PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). Frequencies of csPCa were not significantly different between dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 3 transition zone lesions (20% vs 19%, respectively), dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 4 transition zone lesions (33% vs 26%), and dominant and upgraded PI-RADS 4 peripheral zone lesions (58% vs 45%) ( p > .05). In the biopsy-all, per-guideline MRI-focused, MRI-focused disregarding upgrading rules, per-guideline risk-based, and risk-based disregarding upgrading rules pathways, csPCa frequency was 53%, 52%, 51%, 52%, and 48% and biopsy avoidance was 0%, 13%, 16%, 19%, and 25%, respectively. Disregarding upgrading rules yielded 5.5 and 1.9 biopsies avoided per missed csPCa for MRI-focused and risk-based pathways, respectively. At probability thresholds for biopsy selection of 7.5-30.0%, net benefit was highest for the per-guideline risk-based pathway. CONCLUSION. Disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules reduced net clinical bene fit of the risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway when considering trade-offs between csPCa detection and biopsy avoidance. CLINICAL IMPACT. This study supports the application of PI-RADS upgrading rules to optimize biopsy selection, particularly in risk-based pathways.

Background and Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy., Methods: A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement., Key Findings and Limitations: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting., Patient Summary: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Accurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting is essential for transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) planning. Although approved computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools may assist urologists in this task, evidence of improved clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection is lacking. Therefore, we aimed to document the diagnostic utility of using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and CAD for biopsy planning compared with PI-RADS alone., Methods: A total of 262 consecutive men scheduled for TPB at our referral centre were analysed. Reported PI-RADS lesions and an US Food and Drug Administration-cleared CAD tool were used for TPB planning. PI-RADS and CAD lesions were targeted on TPB, while four (interquartile range: 2-5) systematic biopsies were taken. The outcomes were the (1) proportion of csPCa (grade group ≥2) and (2) number of targeted lesions and false-positive rate. Performance was tested using free-response receiver operating characteristic curves and the exact Fisher-Yates test., Key Findings and Limitations: Overall, csPCa was detected in 56% (146/262) of men, with sensitivity of 92% and 97% (p = 0.007) for PI-RADS- and CAD-directed TPB, respectively. In 4% (10/262), csPCa was detected solely by CAD-directed biopsies; in 8% (22/262), additional csPCa lesions were detected. However, the number of targeted lesions increased by 54% (518 vs 336) and the false-positive rate doubled (0.66 vs 1.39; p = 0.009). Limitations include biopsies only for men at clinical/radiological suspicion and no multidisciplinary review of MRI before biopsy., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The tested CAD tool for TPB planning improves csPCa detection at the cost of an increased number of lesions sampled and false positives. This may enable more personalised biopsy planning depending on urological and patient preferences., Patient Summary: The computer-aided diagnosis tool tested for transperineal prostate biopsy planning improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at the cost of an increased number of lesions sampled and false positives. This may enable more personalised biopsy planning depending on urological and patient preferences., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)