Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for brachytherapists: Anatomy and technique.

PURPOSE: To present an overview of mp MRI techniques necessary for high-resolution imaging of prostate. METHODS: We summarize examples from our clinical experience and concepts from the current literature that illustrate normal prostate anatomy on multiparametric MRI (mp MRI). RESULTS: Our experience regarding optimal mp MRI image acquisition is provided, as well as a summary of prostate and periprostatic anatomy and anatomical variants that pose challenges for BT. CONCLUSIONS: mp MRI provides unparalleled assessment of the prostate and periprostatic anatomy, making it the most appropriate imaging modality to facilitate prostate BT treatment planning, implantation, and followup. This work provides an introduction to prostate mp MR imaging, anatomy, and anatomical variants essential for successful integration mp MRI into prostate brachytherapy practice.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for brachytherapists: Diagnosis, imaging pitfalls, and post-therapy assessment.

Optimal integration of multiparametric MRI (mp MRI) into prostate brachytherapy practice necessitates an understanding of imaging findings pertinent to prostate cancer detection and staging. This review will summarize prostate cancer imaging findings and tumor staging on mp MRI, including an overview of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS)-structured reporting schema, mp MRI findings observed in the post-therapy setting including cases of post-treatment recurrence, and MRI concepts integral to successful salvage brachytherapy.

Independent validation of the prognostic capacity of the ISUP prostate cancer grade grouping system for radiation treated patients with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent proposal to change the grading system of prostate cancer into a five-tier grade grouping system. The prognostic impact of this has been demonstrated in regards only to biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) with short follow-up (3 years). METHODS: Between 1990 and 2013, 847 consecutive men were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy at a single academic center. To validate the new grade grouping system, bRFS, distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were calculated. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the independent impact of the new grade grouping system. Discriminatory analyses were performed to compare the commonly used three-tier Gleason score system (6, 7 and 8-10) to the new system. RESULTS: The median follow-up of our cohort was 88 months. The 5-grade groups independently validated differing risks of bRFS (group 1 as reference; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.35, 2.16, 1.79 and 3.84 for groups 2-5, respectively). Furthermore, a clear stratification was demonstrated for DMFS (aHR 2.03, 3.18, 3.62 and 13.77 for groups 2-5, respectively) and PCSS (aHR 3.00, 5.32, 6.02 and 39.02 for groups 2-5, respectively). The 5-grade group system had improved prognostic discrimination for all end points compared with the commonly used three-tiered system (that is, Gleason score 6, 7 and 8-10). CONCLUSIONS: In a large independent radiotherapy cohort with long-term follow-up, we have validated the bRFS benefit of the proposed five-tier grade grouping system. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the system is highly prognostic for DMFS and PCSS. Grade group 5 had markedly worse outcomes for all end points, and future work is necessary to improve outcomes in these patients.