Diagnostic Utility of Artificial Intelligence-assisted Transperineal Biopsy Planning in Prostate Cancer Suspected Men: A Prospective Cohort Study.

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.

Reduction of false positives using zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density for prostate MRI-based biopsy decision strategies.

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.

PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

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. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.

The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations.

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.

PI-RADS Upgrading Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection and Biopsy Avoidance of MRI-Directed Diagnostic Pathways.

Background: PI-RADS incorporate 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: 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. 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 tradeoff of csPCa detection and biopsy avoidance, of MRI-directed pathways in scenarios considering and disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules. These included biopsy-all pathway, MRI-focused pathway (no biopsy for PI-RADS ≤2), and risk-based pathway (use of PSA density ≥0.15 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%), 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%, net benefit was highest for the per-guideline risk-based pathway. Conclusion: Disregarding PI-RADS upgrading rules reduced net clinical benefit of the risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway when considering tradeoffs 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.

Potentially active aspirin derivative to release nitric oxide: In-vitro, in-vivo and in-silico approaches.

The series of newer salicylate derivatives incorporating nitroxy functionality were synthesized and evaluated for their potential effect in gastrointestinal (GI) related toxicity produced by aspirin. The synthesized compounds (5a-j) were subjected to %NO (nitric oxide) release study, in-vitro anti-inflammatory potential, % inhibition of carrageenan-induced paw edema and the obtained results were validated by in-silico studies including molecular docking, MD simulations and in-silico ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination) calculations. Compounds 5a (20.86 %) and 5g (18.20 %) displayed the highest percentage of NO release in all the tested compounds. Similarly, 5a and 5h were found to have (77.11 % and 79.53 %) &(78.56 % and 66.10 %) inhibition in carrageenan induced paw edema in animal mode which were relatively higher than ibuprofen (standard used). The obtained results were validated by molecular docking and MD simulations studies. The molecular docking study of 5a and 5h revealed that docking scores were also obtained in very close proximity of -8.35, -9.67 and -8.48 for ibuprofen, 5g and 5h respectively. In MD simulations studies, the calculated lower RMSD (root mean square deviation) values 2.8 Å and 5.6 Å for 5g and 5h, respectively indicated the stability of ligand-protein complexes. Similarly lower RSMF (root mean square fluctuation) values indicated the molecules remained in the active pocket throughout the entire MD simulations run. Further, in-silico ADME calculations were determined and all compounds obey the Lipinski's rule of five and it was predicted that these molecules would be orally active without any serious toxic effect.

Key learning on the promise and limitations of MRI in prostate cancer screening.

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.

How Imaging Advances Are Defining the Future of Precision Radiation Therapy.

Radiation therapy is fundamental in the treatment of cancer. Imaging has always played a central role in radiation oncology. Integrating imaging technology into irradiation devices has increased the precision and accuracy of dose delivery and decreased the toxic effects of the treatment. Although CT has become the standard imaging modality in radiation therapy, the development of recently introduced next-generation imaging techniques has improved diagnostic and therapeutic decision making in radiation oncology. Functional and molecular imaging techniques, as well as other advanced imaging modalities such as SPECT, yield information about the anatomic and biologic characteristics of tumors for the radiation therapy workflow. In clinical practice, they can be useful for characterizing tumor phenotypes, delineating volumes, planning treatment, determining patients' prognoses, predicting toxic effects, assessing responses to therapy, and detecting tumor relapse. Next-generation imaging can enable personalization of radiation therapy based on a greater understanding of tumor biologic factors. It can be used to map tumor characteristics, such as metabolic pathways, vascularity, cellular proliferation, and hypoxia, that are known to define tumor phenotype. It can also be used to consider tumor heterogeneity by highlighting areas at risk for radiation resistance for focused biologic dose escalation, which can impact the radiation planning process and patient outcomes. The authors review the possible contributions of next-generation imaging to the treatment of patients undergoing radiation therapy. In addition, the possible roles of radio(geno)mics in radiation therapy, the limitations of these techniques, and hurdles in introducing them into clinical practice are discussed. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

The Impact of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging and Tumor Molecular Profiling on Risk Stratification, Treatment Choice, and Oncological Outcomes of Patients with Primary or Relapsed Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Review of the Existing Literature.

CONTEXT: The clinical introduction of next-generation imaging methods and molecular biomarkers ("radiogenomics") has revolutionized the field of prostate cancer (PCa). While the clinical validity of these tests has thoroughly been vetted, their clinical utility remains a matter of investigation. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence to date on the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and tissue-based prognostic biomarkers, including Decipher, Prolaris, and Oncotype Dx, on the risk stratification, treatment choice, and oncological outcomes of men with newly diagnosed PCa or those with biochemical failure (BCF). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a quantitative systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (2010-2022) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement guidelines. The validated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 scoring system was used to assess the risk of bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 148 studies (130 on PET and 18 on biomarkers) were included. In the primary PCa setting, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging was not useful in improving T staging, moderately useful in improving N staging, but consistently useful in improving M staging in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) unfavorable intermediate- to very-high-risk PCa. Its use led to a management change in 20-30% of patients. However, the effect of these treatment changes on survival outcomes was not clear. Similarly, biomarkers in the pretherapy primary PCa setting increased and decreased the risk, respectively, in 7-30% and 32-36% of NCCN low-risk and 31-65% and 4-15% of NCCN favorable intermediate-risk patients being considered for active surveillance. A change in management was noted in up to 65% of patients, with the change being in line with the molecular risk-based reclassification, but again, the impact of these changes on survival outcomes remained unclear. Notably, in the postsurgical primary PCa setting, biomarker-guided adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) was associated with improved oncological control: Δ↓ 2-yr BCF by 22% (level 2b). In the BCF setting, the data were more mature. PSMA PET was consistently useful in improving disease localization-Δ↑ detection for T, N, and M staging was 13-32%, 19-58%, and 9-29%, respectively. Between 29% and 73% of patients had a change in management. Most importantly, these management changes were associated with improved survival outcomes in three trials: Δ↑ 4-yr disease-free survival by 24.3%, Δ↑ 6-mo metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 46.7%, and Δ↑ androgen deprivation therapy-free survival by 8 mo in patients who received PET-concordant RT (level 1b-2b). Biomarker testing in these patients also appeared to be helpful in risk stratifying and guiding the use of early salvage RT (sRT) and concomitant hormonal therapy. Patients with high-genomic-risk scores benefitted from treatment intensification: Δ↑ 8-yr MFS by 20% with the use of early sRT and Δ↑ 12-yr MFS by 11.2% with the use of hormonal therapy alongside early sRT, while low-genomic-risk score patients did equally well with initial conservative management (level 3). CONCLUSIONS: Both PSMA PET imaging and tumor molecular profiling provide actionable information in the management of men with primary PCa and those with BCF. Emerging data suggest that radiogenomics-guided treatments translate into direct survival benefits for patients, however, additional prospective data are awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we evaluated the utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography and tumor molecular profiling in guiding the care of men with prostate cancer (PCa). We found that these tests augmented risk stratification, altered management, and improved cancer control in men with a new diagnosis of PCa or for those experiencing a relapse.

Prostagram magnetic resonance imaging in a screening population: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System or Likert?

OBJECTIVE: To compare biopsy recommendation rates and accuracy of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2) with the Likert scale for detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer in men screened within the Imperial Prostate 1 Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Using Imaging (IP1-PROSTAGRAM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 50-69 years were screened with Prostagram MRI. Scans were prospectively reported using both PI-RADSv2 (excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence score) and 5-point Likert scores by expert uro-radiologists. Systematic and targeted transperineal biopsy was recommended if the scan was scored ≥ 3, based on either reporting system. The proportion of patients recommended for biopsy and detection rates for Grade Groups (GGs) 1 and ≥ 2 were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare performance. RESULTS: A total of 406 men underwent Prostagram MRI. The median (interquartile range) age and prostate-specific antigen level were 57 (53-61) years and 0.91 (0.56-1.74) ng/mL, respectively. At MRI score ≥ 3, more patients were recommended for biopsy based on Likert criteria (94/406; 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2%-27.6%) compared to PI-RADSv2 (72/406; 18%, 95% CI 14.2%-21.9%; P = 0.03). For MRI scores ≥ 4, PI-RADSv2 and Likert scales led to 43/406 (11%, 95% CI 7.9%-14.1%) and 35/406 (9%, 95% CI 6.2%-11.9%) men recommended for biopsy (P = 0.40). For GG ≥ 2 detection, PIRADSv2 and Likert detected 22% (95% CI 11.4%-30.8%, 14/72) and 16% (95% CI 9.5%-25.3%, 15/94), respectively (P = 0.56). For GG1 cancers detection these were 11% (95% CI 4.3%-19.6%, seven of 72) vs 11% (95% CI 4.7%-17.8%, nine of 94; P = 1.00). The accuracy of PI-RADSv2 and Likert scale was similar (area under the ROC curve 0.64 vs 0.65, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In reporting non-contrast-enhanced Prostagram MRI in a screening population, the PI-RADSv2 and Likert scoring systems were equally accurate; however, Likert scale use led to more men undergoing biopsy without a subsequent increase in significant cancer detection rates. To improve reporting of Prostagram MRI, either the PI-RADSv2 or a modified Likert scale or a standalone scoring system should be developed.

Topical betamethasone and systemic colchicine for treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis (RAS) is painful oral ulceration frequently treated with topical steroids. There is limited published evidence for the efficacy of any treatment for RAS and there remains a need for longitudinal randomised clinical trials to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different therapies in the management of RAS. The aim of the current project was to assess the efficacy of betamethasone mouthwash and colchicine tablets, individually and combined, for the treatment of RAS, and to establish the optimum treatment period necessary for a significant reduction in the disease severity. METHODOLOGY: A randomised, prospective, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted over one year, to compare the efficacy of three therapies in RAS. One hundred and six patients were randomized into three groups; 35 received betamethasone mouthwash, 35 had colchicine tablets and 36 received both therapies. The response was evaluated quantitatively every 3 months for 1 year, using the Ulcer Severity Score (USS). RESULTS: For all three treatment regimes, the mean USS decreased by about 30% in the first 3 months (p < 0.001). Further improvement was noted for up to 9 months. At the end of the study, the mean USS had improved by 50% from 34.9 ± 7.2 before treatment to 17.5 ± 8.9 after treatment (p < 0.001). Of included participants, 86% showed significant clinical improvement by the end of the study. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the three regimes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical trial has provided evidence for the efficacy of betamethasone mouthwash and for colchicine tablets in the treatment of RAS and has shown that at least six months of treatment may be required for optimum effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN3267716. Date of clinical trial registration: 15/04/2018.

Radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scanning to assess response.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 is a bone-seeking, ɑ-emitting radionuclide used to treat men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. Sclerotic bone lesions cannot be evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Therefore, imaging response biomarkers are needed. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 randomized trial to assess disease response to radium-223. Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases were randomly allocated to 55 or 88 kBq/kg radium-223 every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) was performed at baseline, at cycles 2 and 4, and after treatment. The primary endpoint was defined as a 30% increase in global median apparent diffusion coefficient. RESULTS: Disease response on DWI was seen in 14 of 36 evaluable patients (39%; 95% confidence interval = 23% to 56%), with marked interpatient and intrapatient heterogeneity of response. There was an association between prostate-specific antigen response and MRI response (odds ratio = 18.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.32 to 258, P = .013). Mean administered activity of radium-223 per cycle was not associated with global MRI response (P = .216) but was associated with DWI response using a 5-target-lesion evaluation (P = .007). In 26 of 36 (72%) patients, new bone metastases, not present at baseline, were seen on DWI scans during radium-223 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DWI is useful for assessment of disease response in bone. Response to radium-223 is heterogeneous, both between patients and between different metastases in the same patient. New bone metastases appear during radium-223 treatment.The REASURE trial is registered under ISRCTN17805587.

Management of Patients With a Negative Multiparametric Prostate MRI Examination: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) aids risk stratification of patients with elevated PSA levels. While 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, and provides guidance for these patients' management. Systematic biopsy should not be routinely performed after a negative mpMRI 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. Patients with negative MRI followed by negative biopsy should follow their healthcare 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 negative mpMRI.

Prostate cancer screening-stepping forward with MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively review the literature on the integration of MRI as a diagnostic tool in prostate cancer screening and offer practical recommendations for optimising its use. METHODS: Existing research studies, clinical guidelines and expert opinions were reviewed to support the optimisation standards for MRI use in screening. Consolidated screening principles were used to make appropriate recommendations regarding the integration of MRI into the diagnostic pathway. RESULTS: To strike a balance between the potential benefits of early detection on mortality and minimising the harm of over-diagnosing indolent cancers, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the context of MRI use. The key to optimisation is patient selections and MRI-targeted biopsies. For men at higher-than-average risk, it is essential to use screening-specific MRI protocols and establish accuracy levels and interpretation criteria. Optimisation of readings by the automation of data acquisition, image quality monitoring, post-processing, radiologist certification and deep-learning computer-aided software is needed. The optimal utilisation of MRI involves its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging. CONCLUSION: MRI in the prostate cancer screening pathway can bring substantial diagnostic benefits. By carefully considering its advantages, limitations and safety concerns and integrating it into a multistep diagnostic pathway, clinicians can improve outcomes while minimising harm to screening participants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The manuscript discusses the role of MRI in prostate cancer screening, highlighting its potential to improve accuracy and reduce overdiagnosis. It emphasises the importance of optimising protocols and integrating MRI into a multistep diagnostic pathway for successfully delivering screening benefits. KEY POINTS: • Population screening for prostate cancer is a new indication for prostate MRI that allows the detection of high-risk cancers while reducing the need for biopsies and associated harm. • To optimise prostate cancer screening using MRI, it is essential to redefine MRI protocols; establish accuracy levels, reliability and interpretation criteria; and optimise reading (including post-processing, image quality, radiologist certification, and deep-learning computer-aided software). • The optimal utilisation of MRI for prostate cancer screening would involve its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging.