Search

01 juli 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, CONTEXT: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they nee

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI-directed biopsy (TR-MRDB) and transperineal (TP)-MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed a two-centre cohort of consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) compliant pre-biopsy MRI in a single, high-volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR-MRDB in Centre 1 and TP-MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy-avoidance due to non-suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy-related complications between TR- and TP-MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI-RADS category. RESULTS: Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR- and TP-MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of -5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI -2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR-MRDB (0.50%) and TP-MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.87% to 1.1%). CONCLUSION: This high-volume, two-centre study shows pre-biopsy MRI as a decis

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Prediction of side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial in selecting patients for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate nomograms including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) information to predict side-specific EPE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of 1870 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent robot-assisted RP from 2014 to 2018 at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Four multivariable logistic regression models were established, including combinations of patient-based and side-specific variables: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, highest ipsilateral International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) biopsy grade, ipsilateral percentage of positive cores on systematic biopsy, and side-specific clinical stage assessed by both digital rectal examination and mpMRI. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and net benefit of these models were assessed in the development cohort and two external validation cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: On external validation, AUCs of the four models ranged from 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.88) to 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.90) in cohort 1 and from 0.77 (95% CI 0.62-0.87) to 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.88) in cohort 2. The three models including mpMRI staging information resulted in relatively higher AUCs compared with the model without mpMRI information. No major differences between the four models regarding net benefit were established. The model based on PSA density, ISUP grade, and mpMRI T stage was superior in terms of calibration. Using this model with a cut-off of 20%, 1980/2908 (68%) prostatic lobes without EPE would be found eligible for nerve sparing, whereas non-nerve sparing would be advised in 642/832 (77%) lobes with EPE. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis resulted in a simple and robust nomogram for the prediction of side-specific EPE, which sho

Contains fulltext : 283332.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: 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-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age >/=50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0-50 ng/ml, +/- abnormal digital rectal examination) were included. INTERVENTION: Biopsy-naive 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). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: 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 chi(2) tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: 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

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic importance of concomitant non-regional lymph node (NRLN) and bone metastases in men with synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and to determine whether M1b/M1c is the most appropriate M-stage and evaluate the additional importance to the distinction in low/high volume disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All men diagnosed with synchronous mHSPC from 2010 to 2018 in the Netherlands were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Men were categorised as having NRLN (M1a), bone (M1b), NRLN and bone (M1c), or visceral metastases (M1c). For men diagnosed since October 2015 disease volume could be determined. Analyses were performed in this cohort (>5600 men) and repeated in the 2010-2018 cohort (>14 000 men). The primary outcome measure in this observational cohort study was overall survival (OS) and Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Compared to men with NRLN and bone metastases (reference group), OS of men with only NRLN (HR 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.88) was better. This was also true for men with only bone metastases in the low-volume subgroup (HR 0.75, 95% CI0.58-0.98), but not in the high-volume subgroup (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.18). In contrast, the OS of men with visceral metastases was worse (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.75-2.77 + 0.97/month, 95% CI 0.96-0.98). CONCLUSION: In men with low-volume synchronous mHSPC, presence of concomitant NRLN and bone metastases (currently classified as M1c), is a poor prognostic sign. However, survival of men with visceral metastases (M1c) is worse. Implying that classifying concomitant NRLN and bone metastases as M1c or M1b is not appropriate. Adding a fourth M1-category to the ninth edition of the Tumour-Node-Metastasis classification should be contemplated. Furthermore, definitions of metastatic burden need to be re-evaluated.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Imaging techniques are used to identify local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) for salvage therapy and to exclude metastases that should be addressed with systemic therapy. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a reduction in the variability of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is required to detect local PCa recurrence in men with biochemical relapse after local treatment with curative intent. OBJECTIVE: To propose a standardised method for image acquisition and assessment of PCa local recurrence using MRI after radiation therapy (RP) and radical prostatectomy (RT). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was formulated using the existing literature. An international panel of experts conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature. The PI-RR system was created via consensus through a combination of face-to-face and online discussions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Similar to with PI-RADS, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion, the minimum acceptable MRI parameters for detection of recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are set. Also, a simplified and standardised terminology and content of the reports that use five assessment categories to summarise the suspicion of local recurrence (PI-RR) are designed. PI-RR scores of 1 and 2 are assigned to lesions with a very low and low likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR 3 is assigned if the presence of recurrence is uncertain. PI-RR 4 and 5 are assigned for a high and very high likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a structured reporting system (PI-RR) for MRI evaluation of local recurrence of PCa after RT and RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: A new method called PI-RR was developed to promote standardisation and reduce variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting

Contains fulltext : 245173.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: * AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence. * Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies. * Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Contains fulltext : 235571.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 225556.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 225861.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 225907.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 219641.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The use of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed diagnostic pathway in men at first prostate cancer work-up has been introduced within European prostate cancer guidelines. Differences in MRI-directed pathway yields need elaboration. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic yields of MRI-directed diagnostic pathways in biopsy-naive men suspected of having prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis uses the data of the Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review on the utility of prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy for significant disease in men at first diagnosis. The paired agreement analysis data were reformulated for five unique biopsy strategies focusing on diagnostic yields and biopsy avoidance. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group >/=2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The detection-focused pathway maximises the detection of significant disease (28% [95% confidence interval {CI} 24-34%]), while not reducing biopsy or core numbers, or the overdiagnoses of insignificant cancers (21% [18-25%]). The triage-focused pathway omits systematic biopsy use (reduction of 100%) and thereby reduces overdiagnoses of ISUP grade group 1 cancers (to 14% [11-17%]), but compromises the detection of significant disease (23% [19-28%]). The MRI-focused pathway maximises the detection of significant disease in MRI-positive men at a cost of nondetection of significant disease in MRI-negative men, thus reducing biopsies and overdiagnoses of ISUP grade 1 (strategy proposed by European Association of Urology guidelines). CONCLUSIONS: All MRI-directed biopsy pathways have beneficial outcomes compared with conventional systematic biopsy, with potentially reduced risks and harms. MRI-directed biopsy management as the default strategy optimises diagnostic yields in men at first diagnosis and may be the only test required in a significa

We aimed to investigate the relation between largest lesion diameter, prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), age, and the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using first-time targeted biopsy (TBx) in men with Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 index lesions. A total of 292 men (2013–2019) from two referral centers were included. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. The discrimination and clinical utility of the built model was assessed by the area under the receiver operation curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis, respectively. A higher PSA-D and higher age were significantly related to a higher risk of detecting csPCa, while the largest index lesion diameter was not. The discrimination of the model was 0.80 (95% CI 0.73–0.87). When compared to a biopsy-all strategy, decision curve analysis showed a higher net benefit at threshold probabilities of ≥2%. Accepting a missing ≤5% of csPCa diagnoses, a risk-based approach would result in 34% of TBx sessions and 23% of low-risk PCa diagnoses being avoided. In men with PI-RADS 3 index lesions scheduled for first-time TBx, the balance between the number of TBx sessions, the detection of low-risk PCa, and the detection of csPCa does not warrant a biopsy-all strategy. To minimize the risk of missing the diagnosis of csPCa but acknowledging the need of avoiding unnecessary TBx sessions and overdiagnosis, a risk-based approach is advisable.

Context: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI pathway), is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision making. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index t

Five years after the last prostatic carcinoma grading consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP), accrual of new data and modification of clinical practice require an update of current pathologic grading guidelines. This manuscript summarizes the proceedings of the ISUP consensus meeting for grading of prostatic carcinoma held in September 2019, in Nice, France. Topics brought to consensus included the following: (1) approaches to reporting of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 quantities, and minor/tertiary patterns, (2) an agreement to report the presence of invasive cribriform carcinoma, (3) an agreement to incorporate intraductal carcinoma into grading, and (4) individual versus aggregate grading of systematic and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies. Finally, developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the grading of prostatic carcinoma and future research perspectives were discussed.

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 outco

Objectives: To develop an automatic method for identification and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer in low-risk patients and to evaluate the performance in a routine clinical setting. Methods: A consecutive cohort (n = 292) from a prospective database of low-risk patients eligible for the active surveillance was selected. A 3-T multi-parametric MRI at 3 months after inclusion was performed. Histopathology from biopsies was used as reference standard. MRI positivity was defined as PI-RADS score ≥ 3, histopathology positivity was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2. The selected cohort contained four patient groups: (1) MRI-positive targeted biopsy-positive (n = 116), (2) MRI-negative systematic biopsy-negative (n = 55), (3) MRI-positive targeted biopsy-negative (n = 113), (4) MRI-negative systematic biopsy-positive (n = 8). Group 1 was further divided into three sets and a 3D convolutional neural network was trained using different combinations of these sets. Two MRI sequences (T2w, b = 800 DWI) and the ADC map were used as separate input channels for the model. After training, the model was evaluated on the remaining group 1 patients together with the patients of groups 2 and 3 to identify and segment clinically significant prostate cancer. Results: The average sensitivity achieved was 82–92% at an average specificity of 43–76% with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 to 0.89 for different lesion volumes ranging from >

Significant prostate carcinoma (sPCa) classification based on MRI using radiomics or deep learning approaches has gained much interest, due to the potential application in assisting in clinical decision-making. Objective: To systematically review the literature (i) to determine which algorithms are most frequently used for sPCa classification, (ii) to investigate whether there exists a relation between the performance and the method or the MRI sequences used, (iii) to assess what study design factors affect the performance on sPCa classification, and (iv) to research whether performance had been evaluated in a clinical setting Methods: The databases Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for studies describing machine learning or deep learning classification methods discriminating between significant and nonsignificant PCa on multiparametric MRI that performed a valid validation procedure. Quality was assessed by the modified radiomics quality score. We computed the median area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) from overall methods and the interquartile range. Results: From 2846 potentially relevant publications, 27 were included. The most frequent algorithms used in the literature for PCa classification are logistic regression (22%) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) (22%). The median AUC was 0.79 (interquartile range: 0.77–0.87). No significant effect of number of included patients, image sequences, or reference standard on the reported performance was found. Three studies described an external validation and none of the papers described a validation in a prospective clinical trial. Conclusions: To unlock the promising potential of machine and deep learning approaches, validation studies and clinical prospective studies should be performed with an established protocol to assess the added value in decision-making.