Which Prostate Cancers are Undetected by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Previous Prostate Biopsy? An Analysis from the PICTURE Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for suspected prostate cancer in patients following prior biopsy. However, not all significant cancers are detected by mpMRI. The PICTURE study provides the ideal opportunity to investigate cancer undetected by mpMRI owing to the use of 5 mm transperineal template mapping (TTPM) biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To summarise attributes of cancers systematically undetected by mpMRI in patients with prior biopsy. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which men requiring repeat biopsy underwent mpMRI followed by TTPM biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Attributes were compared between cancers detected and undetected by mpMRI at the patient level. Four predefined histopathological thresholds were used as the target condition for TTPM biopsy. Application of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was explored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When nonsuspicious mpMRI was defined as Likert score 1-2, 2.9% of patients (3/103; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-8.3%) with definition 1 disease (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or maximum cancer core length [MCCL] ≥ 6 mm of any grade) had their cancer not detected by mpMRI. This proportion was 6.5% (11/168; 95% CI 3.3-11%) for definition 2 disease (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm of any grade), 4.8% (7/146; 95% CI 2.0-9.6%) for any amount of Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 cancer, and 9.3% (20/215; 95% CI 5.8-14%) for any cancer. Definition 1 cancers undetected by mpMRI had lower overall Gleason score (p = 0.02) and maximum Gleason score (p = 0.01) compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had shorter MCCL than cancers detected by mpMRI for every cancer threshold: definition 1, 6 versus 8 mm (p = 0.02); definition 2, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.04); any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.03); and any cancer, 3 versus 5 mm (p = 0.0009). A theoretical PSAD threshold of 0.15 ng/ml/ml reduced the proportion of patients with undetected disease on nonsuspicious mpMRI to 0% (0/105; 95% CI 0-3.5%) for definition 1, 0.58% (1/171; 95% CI 0.01-3.2%) for definition 2, and 0% (0/146) for any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. CONCLUSIONS: Few significant cancers are undetected by mpMRI in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsy. Undetected tumours are of lower overall and maximum Gleason grade and shorter cancer length compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: In patients with a previous prostate biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overlooks few prostate cancers, and these tend to be smaller and less aggressive than cancer that is detected.

Correction to: Machine learning classifiers can predict Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer with greater accuracy than experienced radiologists.

The original version of this article, published on 11 June 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: In section "Multiparametric MRI review," the readers mentioned in the first sentence were partly incorrect.

Added value of diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast enhancement in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the PICTURE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the additional diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) in men requiring a repeat biopsy within the PICTURE study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which 249 men who required further risk stratification after a previous non-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy underwent a 3-Tesla (3T) multiparametic (mp)MRI consisting of T2-weighted imaging (T2W), DWI and DCE, followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Each mpMRI was reported using a LIKERT score in a sequential blinded manner to generate scores for T2W, T2W+DWI and T2W+DWI+DCE. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of each combination. The threshold for a positive mpMRI was set at a LIKERT score ≥3. Clinically significant prostate cancer was analysed across a range of definitions including UCL/Ahmed definition 1 (primary definition), UCL/Ahmed definition 2, any Gleason ≥3 + 4 and any Gleason ≥4 + 3. RESULTS: Of 249 men, sequential MRI reporting was available for 246. There was a higher rate of equivocal lesions (44.6%) using T2W alone compared to the addition of DWI (23.9%) and DCE (19.8%). Using the primary definition of clinically significant disease, there was no significant difference in the overall accuracy between T2W, with an AUROC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.80), T2W+DWI at 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.82), and T2W+DWI+DCE, with an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82; P = 0.55). The AUROC values remained comparable using other definitions of clinically significant disease including UCL/Ahmed definition 2 (P = 0.79), Gleason ≥3 + 4 (P = 0.53) and Gleason ≥4 + 3 (P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Using 3T MRI, a high level of diagnostic accuracy can be achieved using T2W as a single parameter in men with a prior biopsy; however, such a strategy can lead to a higher rate of equivocal lesions.

Machine learning classifiers can predict Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer with greater accuracy than experienced radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was: To test whether machine learning classifiers for transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ) can correctly classify prostate tumors into those with/without a Gleason 4 component, and to compare the performance of the best performing classifiers against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data was performed at a single center between 2012 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were (i) 3-T mp-MRI compliant with international guidelines, (ii) Likert ≥ 3/5 lesion, (iii) transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy confirming cancer ≥ Gleason 3 + 3. Index lesions from 164 men were analyzed (119 PZ, 45 TZ). Quantitative MRI and clinical features were used and zone-specific machine learning classifiers were constructed. Models were validated using a fivefold cross-validation and a temporally separated patient cohort. Classifier performance was compared against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. RESULTS: The best PZ classifier trained with prostate-specific antigen density, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and maximum enhancement (ME) on DCE-MRI obtained a ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 following fivefold cross-validation. Diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity was higher for the best PZ model (0.93) when compared with the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.72). The best TZ model used ADC and ME to obtain an AUC of 0.75 following fivefold cross-validation. This achieved higher diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity (0.88) than the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning classifiers predict Gleason pattern 4 in prostate tumors better than radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Predictive models developed from quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regarding the characterization of prostate cancer grade should be zone-specific. • Classifiers trained differently for peripheral and transition zone can predict a Gleason 4 component with a higher performance than the subjective opinion of experienced radiologists. • Classifiers would be particularly useful in the context of active surveillance, whereby decisions regarding whether to biopsy are necessitated.

Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE): a prospective cohort validating study assessing Prostate HistoScanning.

BACKGROUND: Men with negative prostate biopsies or those diagnosed with low-risk or low-volume intermediate-risk prostate cancers often require a second prostate biopsy prior to a treatment decision. Prostate HistoScanning (PHS) is an ultrasound imaging test that might inform prostate biopsy in such men. METHODS: PICTURE was a prospective, paired-cohort validating trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging in men requiring a further biopsy (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01492270) (11 January 2012-29 January 2014). We enrolled 330 men who had undergone a prior TRUS biopsy but where diagnostic uncertainty remained. All eligible men underwent PHS and transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsy (reference standard). Men were blinded to the imaging results until after undergoing TTPM biopsies. We primarily assessed the ability of PHS to rule out clinically significant prostate (negative predictive value [NPV] and sensitivity) for a target histological condition of Gleason ≥4+3 and/or a cancer core length (MCCL) ≥6 mm. We also assessed the role of visually estimated PHS-targeted biopsies. RESULTS: Of the 330 men enrolled, 249 underwent both PHS and TTPM biopsy. Mean (SD) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 (4.98-9.50) ng/ml, median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (SD) gland size 37 (15.5) ml. One hundred and forty six (59%) had no clinically significant cancer. PHS classified 174 (70%) as suspicious. Sensitivity was 70.3% (95% CI 59.8-79.5) and NPV 41.3% (95% CI 27.0-56.8). Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 14.7% (95% CI 9.1-22.0) and 36.8% (95% CI 29.6-44.4), respectively. In all, 213/220 had PHS suspicious areas targeted with targeting sensitivity 13.6% (95% CI 7.3-22.6), specificity 97.6% (95% CI 93.1-99.5), NPV 61.6% (95% CI 54.5-68.4) and PPV 80.0% (95% CI 51.9-95.7). CONCLUSIONS: PHS is not a useful test in men seeking risk stratification following initial prostate biopsy.

Multi-parametric MRI zone-specific diagnostic model performance compared with experienced radiologists for detection of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the performance of zone-specific multi-parametric-MRI (mp-MRI) diagnostic models in prostate cancer detection with experienced radiologists. METHODS: A single-centre, IRB approved, prospective STARD compliant 3 T MRI test dataset of 203 patients was generated to test validity and generalisability of previously reported 1.5 T mp-MRI diagnostic models. All patients included within the test dataset underwent 3 T mp-MRI, comprising T2, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging followed by transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy. Separate diagnostic models (transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ)) were applied to respective zones. Sensitivity/specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) were calculated for the two zone-specific models. Two radiologists (A and B) independently Likert scored test 3 T mp-MRI dataset, allowing ROC analysis for each radiologist for each prostate zone. RESULTS: Diagnostic models applied to the test dataset demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) in the PZ and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61-0.75) in the TZ. Radiologist A/B had a ROC-AUC = 0.78/0.74 in the PZ and 0.69/0.69 in the TZ. Radiologists A and B each scored 51 patients in the PZ and 41 and 45 patients respectively in the TZ as Likert 3. The PZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.65/0.67 for the patients Likert scored as indeterminate by radiologist A/B respectively, whereas the TZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74/0.69. CONCLUSION: Zone-specific mp-MRI diagnostic models demonstrate generalisability between 1.5 and 3 T mp-MRI protocols and show similar classification performance to experienced radiologists for prostate cancer detection. Results also indicate the ability of diagnostic models to classify cases with an indeterminate radiologist score. KEY POINTS: • MRI diagnostic models had similar performance to experienced radiologists for classification of prostate cancer. • MRI diagnostic models may help radiologists classify tumour in patients with indeterminate Likert 3 scores.

Immunohistochemical biomarker validation in highly selective needle biopsy microarrays derived from mpMRI-characterized prostates.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosing prostate cancer routinely involves tissue biopsy and increasingly image guided biopsy using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Excess tissue after diagnosis can be used for research to improve the diagnostic pathway and the vertical assembly of prostate needle biopsy cores into tissue microarrays (TMAs) allows the parallel immunohistochemical (IHC) validation of cancer biomarkers in routine diagnostic specimens. However, tissue within a biopsy core is often heterogeneous and cancer is not uniformly present, resulting in needle biopsy TMAs that suffer from highly variable cancer detection rates that complicate parallel biomarker validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate cores with the highest tumor burden (in terms of Gleason score and/or maximum cancer core length) were obtained from 249 patients in the PICTURE trial who underwent transperineal template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals preceded by mpMRI. From each core, 2 mm segments containing tumor or benign tissue (as assessed on H&E pathology) were selected, excised and embedded vertically into a new TMA block. TMA sections were then IHC-stained for the routinely used prostate cancer biomarkers PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB and assessed using the h-score method. H-scores in patient matched malignant and benign tissue were correlated with the Gleason grade of the original core and the MRI Likert score for the sampled prostate area. RESULTS: A total of 2240 TMA cores were stained and IHC h-scores were assigned to 1790. There was a statistically significant difference in h-scores between patient matched malignant and adjacent benign tissue that is independent of Likert score. There was no association between the h-scores and Gleason grade or Likert score within each of the benign or malignant groups. CONCLUSION: The construction of highly selective TMAs from prostate needle biopsy cores is possible. IHC data obtained through this method are highly reliable and can be correlated with imaging. IHC expression patterns for PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB are distinct in malignant and adjacent benign tissue but did not correlate with mpMRI Likert score.

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and compared visual estimation to image fusion targeting in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective, ethics committee approved PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) enrolled 249 consecutive patients from January 11, 2012 to January 29, 2014. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and were blinded to the results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. In 200 men with a lesion this was preceded by visual estimation and image fusion targeted biopsies. As the primary study end point clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or any grade of cancer with a length of 6 mm or greater. Other definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ± SD patient age was 62.6 ± 7 years, median prostate specific antigen was 7.17 ng/ml (IQR 5.25-10.09), mean primary lesion size was 0.37 ± 1.52 cc with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 targeted cores per lesion on visual estimation and image fusion combined, and a mean of 48.7 ± 12.3 transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy cores. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies detected 97 clinically significant prostate cancers (48.5%) and 85 insignificant cancers (42.5%). Overall multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies detected 81 clinically significant prostate cancers (40.5%) and 63 insignificant cancers (31.5%). In the 18 cases (9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 34 cases (17%) on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy but not on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and approximately half was present in nontargeted areas. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found on visual estimation and image fusion in 53 (31.3%) and 48 (28.4%) of the 169 patients (McNemar test p = 0.5322). Visual estimation missed 23 clinically significant prostate cancers (13.6%) detected by image fusion. Image fusion missed 18 clinically significant prostate cancers (10.8%) detected by visual estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies are accurate for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and reducing the over diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximize detection visual estimation as well as image fusion targeted biopsies are required.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study.

PURPOSE: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy is an increasingly used method of procuring tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer. We report patient related outcome measures and adverse events in men in the PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) who underwent this diagnostic test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 249 men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy as a validation study. Functional outcomes before and after transperineal template prostate mapping were prospectively collected and recorded with questionnaires, including the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the I-PSS-QoL (Quality of Life), the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15) and the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) urinary function. RESULTS: Mean age was 62 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml and median gland size was 37 ml. At transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy a median of 49 cores (IQR 40-55) were taken. Mean time to complete the post-procedure patient related outcome measure questionnaires was 46 days. Adverse events included post-procedure acute urinary retention in 24% of patients, rectal pain in 26% and perineal pain in 41%. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in scores on the I-PSS from 10.9 to 11.8 (p = 0.024) and the I-PSS-QoL from 1.57 to 1.76 (p = 0.03). The IIEF-15 erectile function score decreased by 23.2% from 47.7 to 38.7 (p <0.001). Significant deterioration was noted in all 5 of IIEF-15 functional domains, including erectile and orgasmic function, sexual desire, and intercourse and overall satisfaction (p <0.001). EPIC urinary scores showed no overall change from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy.

Characterizing indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone prostate lesions with PSA density, PI-RADS scoring and qualitative descriptors on multiparametric MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone (PZ) multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) studies are classifiable by prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System version 2 (PI-RADS_v2) rescoring and morphological MRI features. METHODS: Men with maximum Likert-score 3/5 within their PZ were retrospectively selected from 330 patients who prospectively underwent prostate mpMRI (3 T) without an endorectal coil, followed by 20-zone transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies ＋/- focal lesion-targeted biopsy. PSAD was calculated using pre-biopsy PSA and MRI-derived volume. Two readers A and B independently assessed included men with both Likert-assessment and PI-RADS_v2. Both readers then classified mpMRI morphological features in consensus. Men were divided into two groups: significant cancer (≥ Gleason 3 ＋ 4) or insignificant cancer (≤ Gleason 3 ＋ 3)/no cancer. Comparisons between groups were made separately for PSA & PSAD using Mann-Whitney test and morphological descriptors with Fisher's exact test. PI-RADS_v2 and Likert-assessment were descriptively compared and percentage inter-reader agreement calculated. RESULTS: 76 males were eligible for PSA & PSAD analyses, 71 for PI-RADS scoring, and 67 for morphological assessment (excluding significant image artefacts). Unlike PSA (p = 0.915), PSAD was statistically different (p = 0.004) between the significant [median: 0.19 ng ml-2 (interquartile range: 0.13-0.29)] and non-significant/no cancer [median: 0.13 ng ml-2 (interquartile range: 0.10-0.17)] groups. Presence of mpMRI morphological features was not significantly different between groups. Subjective Likert-assessment discriminated patients with significant cancer better than PI-RADS_v2. Inter-reader percentage agreement was 83% for subjective Likert-assessment and 56% for PI-RADS_v2. CONCLUSION: PSAD may categorize presence of significant cancer in patients with Likert-scored 3/5 PZ mpMRI findings. Advances in knowledge: PSAD may be used in indeterminate PZ mpMRI to guide decisions between biopsy vs monitoring.

The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal prostate biopsy has limited diagnostic accuracy. Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE) was a paired-cohort confirmatory study designed to assess diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men requiring a repeat biopsy. METHODS: All underwent 3 T mpMRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies (TTPM biopsies). Multiparametric MRI was reported using Likert scores and radiologists were blinded to initial biopsies. Men were blinded to mpMRI results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or cancer core length ⩾6 mm. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-nine had both tests with mean (s.d.) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 ng ml (4.98-9.50), median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (s.d.) gland size 37 ml (15.5). On TTPM biopsies, 103 (41%) had clinically significant prostate cancer. Two hundred and fourteen (86%) had a positive prostate mpMRI using Likert score ⩾3; sensitivity was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92-99), specificity 21.9% (15.5-29.5), negative predictive value (NPV) 91.4% (76.9-98.1) and positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7% (35.2-47.8). One hundred and twenty-nine (51.8%) had a positive mpMRI using Likert score ⩾4; sensitivity was 80.6% (71.6-87.7), specificity 68.5% (60.3-75.9), NPV 83.3% (75.4-89.5) and PPV 64.3% (55.4-72.6). CONCLUSIONS: In men advised to have a repeat prostate biopsy, prostate mpMRI could be used to safely avoid a repeat biopsy with high sensitivity for clinically significant cancers. However, such a strategy can miss some significant cancers and overdiagnose insignificant cancers depending on the mpMRI score threshold used to define which men should be biopsied.

Development and Phantom Validation of a 3-D-Ultrasound-Guided System for Targeting MRI-Visible Lesions During Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: Three- and four-dimensional transrectal ultrasound transducers are now available from most major ultrasound equipment manufacturers, but currently are incorporated into only one commercial prostate biopsy guidance system. Such transducers offer the benefits of rapid volumetric imaging, but can cause substantial measurement distortion in electromagnetic tracking sensors, which are commonly used to enable 3-D navigation. In this paper, we describe the design, development, and validation of a 3-D-ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy system that employs high-accuracy optical tracking to localize the ultrasound probe and prostate targets in 3-D physical space. METHODS: The accuracy of the system was validated by evaluating the targeted needle placement error after inserting a biopsy needle to sample planned targets in a phantom using standard 2-D ultrasound guidance versus real-time 3-D guidance provided by the new system. RESULTS: The overall mean needle-segment-to-target distance error was 3.6 ± 4.0 mm and mean needle-to-target distance was 3.2 ± 2.4 mm. CONCLUSION: A significant increase in needle placement accuracy was observed when using the 3-D guidance system compared with visual targeting of invisible (virtual) lesions using a standard B-mode ultrasound-guided biopsy technique.

Salvage ablative therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design.

INTRODUCTION: Salvage ablative therapy (SAT) has been developed as a form of localized treatment for localized recurrence of prostate cancers following radiation therapy. To better address the utility of SAT, prospective clinical trials must address the aspects of accepted standards in the initial evaluation, treatment, follow-up, and outcomes in the oncology community. We undertook this study to achieve consensus on uniform standardized trial design for SAT trials. METHODS: A literature search was performed and an international multidisciplinary group of experts was identified. A questionnaire was constructed and sent out to 71 participants in 3 consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which the results were reviewed and conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: Patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy were considered candidates for a SAT trial using any ablation scenario performed with cryotherapy or high-intensity focused ultrasound. It is feasible to compare different sources of energy or to compare with historical data on salvage radical prostatectomy outcomes. The primary objective should be to assess the efficacy of the treatment for negative biopsy rate at 12 months. Secondary objectives should include safety parameters and quality-of-life assessment. Exclusion criteria should include evidence of local or distant metastases. The optimal biopsy strategy is image-guided targeted biopsies. Follow-up includes multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate-specific antigen level, and quality of life for at least 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary board from international experts reached consensus on trial design for SAT in prostate cancer and provides a standard for designing a feasible SAT trial.

Using imaging biomarkers to improve the planning of radical prostatectomies.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory pilot study aimed to evaluate whether adding imaging biomarkers to conventional staging improves complete excision rates after undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in the United Kingdom for patients who have not undergone population prostate specific antigen screening. We primarily considered estimates of lesion volume and location based on computer-aided analysis of ultrasound (US) raw radiofrequency (RF) data acquired during trans-rectal ultrasound. The imaging analysis device used had been shown to accurately detect tumor loci within the prostate in previous studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: US raw RF data were collected from motorized trans-rectal ultrasound of 68 consecutive men with operable prostate cancer. In this cohort (group 1), locations and volume measurements of lesions suspected of harboring cancer on US raw RF data analysis by prostate HistoScanning, were added to conventional presurgical staging.The unexposed control group comprised 100 men who underwent conventional presurgical staging only (group 2): 50 were operated before and 50 operated after group 1 recruitment. Changes to pre-operative surgical planning and positive lateral margins of RP prostate pathological specimens were the primary outcomes. Data were collected using a Microsoft Excel database and analyzed using Stata. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were comparable. In group 1, consideration of the additional imaging biomarkers led to changes in 27 (19.9%) operative surgical plans. Absolute rate reduction of a positive surgical margin (PSM) attributable to the imaging-biomarkers was 13.3% (P = 0.029). For stage pT3, PSM rate was reduced from 45.8% (n = 44) to 21.2% (n = 11) (P = 0.0028). CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining quantitative measurements of preoperative imaging biomarkers appears to improve PSM rates of patients undergoing RP. The greatest PSM rate reduction was observed for pT3 tumors.

Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is an increasingly popular and rapidly evolving field. OBJECTIVE: To gather expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcome measures for focal therapy in clinical practice and trial design. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen experts in focal therapy followed a modified two-stage RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology process. All participants independently scored 246 statements prior to rescoring at a face-to-face meeting. The meeting occurred in June 2013 at the Royal Society of Medicine, London, supported by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department of Health. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty were calculated as the median panel score. Consensus was derived from the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry level. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 246 statements, 154 (63%) reached consensus. Items of agreement included the following: patients with intermediate risk and patients with unifocal and multifocal PCa are eligible for focal treatment; magnetic resonance imaging-targeted or template-mapping biopsy should be used to plan treatment; planned treatment margins should be 5mm from the known tumor; prostate volume or age should not be a primary determinant of eligibility; foci of indolent cancer can be left untreated when treating the dominant index lesion; histologic outcomes should be defined by targeted biopsy at 1 yr; residual disease in the treated area of ≤3 mm of Gleason 3+3 did not need further treatment; and focal retreatment rates of ≤20% should be considered clinically acceptable but subsequent whole-gland therapy deemed a failure of focal therapy. All statements are expert opinion and therefore constitute level 5 evidence and may not reflect wider clinical consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The landscape of PCa treatment is rapidly evolving with new treatment technologies. This consensus meeting provides guidance to clinicians on current expert thinking in the field of focal therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report we present expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcomes for clinicians working in focal therapy for prostate cancer.

The PICTURE study -- prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the PICTURE study is to assess the negative predictive value of multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) and Prostate HistoScanning™ (PHS) in ruling-out clinically significant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PICTURE is a prospective diagnostic validating cohort study conforming to level 1 evidence. PICTURE will assess the diagnostic performance of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mp-MRI) and Prostate HistoScanning™ (PHS) ultrasound. PICTURE will involve validating both index tests against a reference test, transperineal Template Prostate Mapping (TPM) biopsies, which can be applied in all men under evaluation. Men will be blinded to the index test results and both index tests will be reported prospectively prior to the biopsies being taken to ensure reporter blinding. Paired analysis of each of the index tests to the reference test will be done at patient level. Those men with an imaging lesion will undergo targeted biopsies to assess the clinical utility of sampling only suspicious areas. The study is powered to assess the negative predictive value of these imaging modalities in ruling-out clinically significant prostate cancer. DISCUSSION: The PICTURE study aims to assess the performance characteristics of two imaging modalities (mp-MRI and Prostate HistoScanning) for their utility in the prostate cancer pathway. PICTURE aims to identify if either imaging test may be useful for ruling out clinically significant disease in men under investigation, and also to examine if either imaging modality is useful for the detection of disease. Recruitment is underway and expected to complete in 2014.

Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by prostate HistoScanning(™).

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prostate cancer is one of the few solid-organ cancers in which imaging is not used in the diagnostic process. Novel functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques offer promise but may not be cost-effective. Prostate HistoScanning(™) (PHS) is an ultrasound-based tissue characterisation technique that has previously shown encouraging results in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The present study reports on the open 'unblinded' phase of a European multicentre study. The prospective 'blind' phase is currently in progress and will determine the value of PHS in a robust fashion overcoming many of the biases inherent in evaluating prostate imaging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of prostate HistoScanning(™) (PHS) an ultrasound (US)-based tissue characterization application, to detect cancer foci by correlating results with detailed radical prostatectomy (RP) histology. PATIENT AND METHODS: In all, 31 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, diagnosed on transrectal biopsies taken using US guidance, and scheduled for RP were recruited from six European centres. Before RP three-dimensional (3D) US raw data for PHS analysis was obtained. Histology by Bostwick Laboratories (London) examined sections obtained from whole mounted glands cut every 3-4 mm. Location and volume estimation of cancer foci by PHS were undertaken using two methods; a manual method and an embedded software tool. In this report we evaluate data obtained from a planned open study phase. The second phase of the study is 'blinded', and currently in progress. RESULTS: 31 patients were eligible for this phase. Three patients were excluded from analysis due to inadequate scan acquisition and pathology violations of the standard operating procedure. One patient withdrew from the study after 3D TRUS examination. PHS detected cancer ≥ 0.20 mL in 25/27 prostates (sensitivity 93%). In all, 23 patients had an index focus ≥ 0.5 mL at pathology, of which 21 were identified as ≥ 0.5 mL by PHS using the manual method (sensitivity 91%) and 19 were correctly identified as ≥ 0.5 mL by the embedded tool (sensitivity 83%). In 27 patients, histological analysis found 32 cancerous foci ≥ 0.2 mL, located in 97 of 162 sextants. After sextant analysis, PHS showed a 90% sensitivity and 72% specificity for the localisation of lesions ≥ 0.2 mL within a sextant. CONCLUSIONS: PHS has the ability to identify and locate prostate cancer and consequently may aid in pre-treatment and pre-surgical planning. In men with a lesion identified, it has potential to enable improved targeting, allowing better risk stratification by obtaining more representative cores. However further verification from the results of the blinded phase of this study are awaited.