The QIBA Profile for Diffusion-Weighted MRI: Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Quantitative Imaging Biomarker.

The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) provides a quantitative measure of water mobility that can be used to probe alterations in tissue microstructure due to disease or treatment. Establishment of the accepted level of variance in ADC measurements for each clinical application is critical for its successful implementation. The Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Biomarker Committee of the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) has recently advanced the ADC Profile from the consensus to clinically feasible stage for the brain, liver, prostate, and breast. This profile distills multiple studies on ADC repeatability and describes detailed procedures to achieve stated performance claims on an observed ADC change within acceptable confidence limits. In addition to reviewing the current ADC Profile claims, this report has used recent literature to develop proposed updates for establishing metrology benchmarks for mean lesion ADC change that account for measurement variance. Specifically, changes in mean ADC exceeding 8% for brain lesions, 27% for liver lesions, 27% for prostate lesions, and 15% for breast lesions are claimed to represent true changes with 95% confidence. This report also discusses the development of the ADC Profile, highlighting its various stages, and describes the workflow essential to achieving a standardized implementation of advanced quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI in the clinic. The presented QIBA ADC Profile guidelines should enable successful clinical application of ADC as a quantitative imaging biomarker and ensure reproducible ADC measurements that can be used to confidently evaluate longitudinal changes and treatment response for individual patients.

Quantitative Prostate MRI, From the AJR Special Series on Quantitative Imaging.

Prostate MRI has traditionally relied on qualitative interpretation. However, quantitative components hold the potential to markedly improve performance. The ADC from DWI is probably the most widely recognized quantitative MRI biomarker and has shown strong discriminatory value for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) as well as for recurrent cancer after treatment. Advanced diffusion techniques, including intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion kurtosis, diffusion tensor imaging, and specific implementations such as restriction spectrum imaging, purport even better discrimination, but are more technically challenging. The inherent T1 and T2 of tissue also provide diagnostic value, with more advanced techniques deriving luminal water imaging and hybrid-multidimensional MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, primarily using a modified Tofts model, also shows independent discriminatory value. Finally, quantitative size and shape features can be combined with the aforementioned techniques and be further refined using radiomics, texture analysis, and artificial intelligence. Which technique will ultimately find widespread clinical use will depend on validation across a myriad of platforms use-cases.

Feasibility and preliminary clinical tolerability of low-field MRI-guided prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the clinical feasibility of a portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system for prostate cancer (PCa) biopsy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men who underwent a 12-core systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (SB) and a low-field MRI guided transperineal targeted biopsy (MRI-TB). Comparison of the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (Gleason Grade [GG] ≥ 2) by SB and low field MRI-TB, stratified by Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) score, prostate volume, and prostate serum antigen (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 39 men underwent both the MRI-TB and SB biopsy. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 69.0 (61.5-73) years, body mass index (BMI) was 28.9 kg/m2 (25.3-34.3), prostate volume was 46.5 cc (32-72.7), and PSA was 9.5 ng/ml (5.5-13.2). The majority (64.4%) of patients had PI-RADS ≥ 4 lesions and 25% of lesions were anterior on pre-biopsy MRII. Cancer detection rate (CDR) was greatest when combining SB and MRI-TB (64.1%). MRI-TB detected 74.3% (29/39) cancers. Of which, 53.8% (21/39) were csPCa while SB detected 42.5% (17/39) csPCa (p = 0.21). In 32.5% (13/39) of cases, MRI-TB upstaged the final diagnosis, compared to 15% (6/39) of cases in which SB upstaged the final diagnosis (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Low-field MRI-TB is clinically feasible. Although future studies on the accuracy of MRI-TB system are needed, the initial CDR is comparable to those seen with fusion-based prostate biopsies. A transperineal and targeted approach may be beneficial in patients with higher BMI and anterior lesions.

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.

Variability of Prostate MRI Charges Among U.S. Hospital-Based Facilities.

The Premier Healthcare Database was used to assess charge variation for prostate MRI examinations in U.S. hospitals from January 2010 to March 2020. In 552 facilities performing 37,073 examinations, the median charge per examination was $4419 with 26-fold variation between the lowest ($593) and highest ($15,150) median facility charges. In multilevel linear regression analysis, interfacility variation explained 63.9% of charge variation. Patients may be charged vastly different prices for prostate MRI depending on the facility.

Management Strategy for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions present a clinical dilemma due to their uncertain nature, which complicates the development of a definitive management strategy. These lesions have an incidence rate of approximately 22-32%, with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) accounting for about 10-30%. Therefore, a thorough evaluation is warranted. RECENT FINDINGS: This review highlights the need for radiology peer review, including the confirmation of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) compliance, as the initial step. Additional MRI models such as VERDICT or Tofts need to be verified. Current evidence shows that imaging and clinical indicators can be used for risk stratification of PI-RADS 3 lesions. For low-risk lesions, a safety net monitoring approach involving annual repeat MRI can be employed. In contrast, lesions deemed potentially risky based on prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT, MPS, Proclarix, or AI/machine learning models should undergo biopsy. It is recommended to establish a multidisciplinary team that takes into account factors such as age, PSAD, prostate, and lesion size, as well as previous biopsy pathological findings. Combining expert opinions, clinical-imaging indicators, and emerging methods will contribute to the development of management strategies for PI-RADS 3 lesions.

Pilot study of the diagnostic utility of 89 Zr-df-IAB2M and 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging and multiparametric MRI in localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of localized prostate cancer (PCa) is limited by inadequacy of multiparametric (mp) MRI to fully identify and differentiate localized malignant tissue from benign pathologies. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) represents an excellent target for molecular imaging. IAB2M, an 85-kD minibody derived from a de-immunized monoclonal antibody directed at the extracellular domain of human PSMA (huJ591), and PSMA-11, a small molecule ligand have been previously tested as probes for visualization of recurrent/metastatic PCa with PET/CT. This pilot, non-randomized trial studied their diagnostic utility in patients (pts) with localized PCa. METHODS: Pts planned for radical prostatectomy (RP) were enrolled and underwent mpMRI and PET/CT imaging with 89 Zr-df-IAB2M and/or 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT. Image results were read by a radiologist blinded to clinical information and pathology results, mapped and compared to corresponding histopathology findings from all lesions, both clinically significant and nonsignificant. The detection rates of all three imaging modalities were measured and correlated. RESULTS: 20 pts with median age of 64.5 (46-79) years and PSA level of 7.5 (1.6-36.56) ng/ml were enrolled. 19 pts underwent RP and were imaged pre-operatively with 89 Zr-Df-IAB2M PET/CT and mpMRI. Nine of those were imaged using 68 Ga-PSMA-11 as well. Out of 48 intraprostatic lesions verified on surgical pathology, IAB2M PET/CT was able to detect 36 (75%). A similar proportion of pathologically confirmed, clinically significant lesions (22/29, 76%) was detected. IAB2M PET/CT was also able to identify 14/19 (74%) extraprostatic lesions. The performance of mpMRI was inferior, with 24/48 detectable lesions (50%) and 18/29 clinically significant intraprostatic lesions (62%). Compared to the current standard (mpMRI), IAB2M PET/CT had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity 38%, positive predictive value 58%, and accuracy 63%. In 9 pts who underwent Ga-PSMA-11 as well, the latter yielded a detection rate of 70% (14/20), which was also seen in clinically significant lesions (10/14, 71%). Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT also detected 4/6 (67%) extraprostatic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, the performance of 89 Zr-df-IAB2M was superior to mpMRI and similar to 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. The higher detection rate of PSMA-PET supports its use as a diagnostic tool with consequent management change implications in men with localized PCa.

Major hemorrhage and mortality in COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism.

We observed multiple fatal intracranial hemorrhages shortly after initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients suggesting increased anticoagulation risk associated with COVID-19. The objective of this study is to quantify risk of major hemorrhage in hospitalized COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for DVT, PE or both at four New York City hospitals were evaluated for hemorrhagic complications. These were categorized as major (including fatal) or clinically relevant non-major according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Hemorrhagic complications were correlated with clinical and laboratory data, ICD-10 code diagnoses and type of anticoagulation treatment. Minor hemorrhages were excluded. Major/clinically relevant hemorrhages occurred in 36 of 170 (21%) hospitalized COVID-19 patients being treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE including 4 (2.4%) fatal hemorrhages. Hemorrhage was 3.4 times more likely with unfractionated heparin 27/76 (36%) compared to 8/81 (10%) with low molecular weight heparin (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that major hemorrhage was associated with intubation (p = 0.04) and elevated serum LDH (p < 0.001) and low fibrinogen (p = 0.05). Increased risk of hemorrhagic complications in treating VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients should be considered especially when using unfractionated heparin, in intubated patients, with low fibrinogen and/or elevated LDH. Checking serum fibrinogen and LDH before initiating therapeutic anticoagulation and monitoring coagulation parameters frequently may reduce bleeding complications.

Tissue clearing techniques for three-dimensional optical imaging of intact human prostate and correlations with multi-parametric MRI.

BACKGROUND: Tissue clearing technologies have enabled remarkable advancements for in situ characterization of tissues and exploration of the three-dimensional (3D) relationships between cells, however, these studies have predominantly been performed in non-human tissues and correlative assessment with clinical imaging has yet to be explored. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of tissue clearing technologies for 3D imaging of intact human prostate and the mapping of structurally and molecularly preserved pathology data with multi-parametric volumetric MR imaging (mpMRI). METHODS: Whole-mount prostates were processed with either hydrogel-based CLARITY or solvent-based iDISCO. The samples were stained with a nuclear dye or fluorescently labeled with antibodies against androgen receptor, alpha-methylacyl coenzyme-A racemase, or p63, and then imaged with 3D confocal microscopy. The apparent diffusion coefficient and Ktrans maps were computed from preoperative mpMRI. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis of cleared normal and tumor prostate tissue volumes displayed differences in 3D tissue architecture, marker-specific cell staining, and cell densities that were significantly correlated with mpMRI measurements in this initial, pilot cohort. CONCLUSIONS: 3D imaging of human prostate volumes following tissue clearing is a feasible technique for quantitative radiology-pathology correlation analysis with mpMRI and provides an opportunity to explore functional relationships between cellular structures and cross-sectional clinical imaging.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Pulmonary Embolism in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Study.

Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) commonly complicates SARS-CoV-2 infection, but incidence and mortality reported in single-center studies, along with risk factors, vary. Purpose To determine the incidence of PE in patients with COVID-19 and its associations with clinical and laboratory parameters. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant study, electronic medical records were searched retrospectively for demographic, clinical, and laboratory data and outcomes among patients with COVID-19 admitted at four hospitals from March through June 2020. PE found at CT pulmonary angiography and perfusion scintigraphy was correlated with clinical and laboratory parameters. The d-dimer level was used to predict PE, and the obtained threshold was externally validated among 85 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at a fifth hospital. The association between right-sided heart strain and embolic burden was evaluated in patients with PE undergoing echocardiography. Results A total of 413 patients with COVID-19 (mean age, 60 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; age range, 20-98 years; 230 men) were evaluated. PE was diagnosed in 102 (25%; 95% CI: 21, 29) of 413 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent CT pulmonary angiography or perfusion scintigraphy. PE was observed in 21 (29%; 95% CI: 19, 41) of 73 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) versus 81 (24%; 95% CI: 20, 29) of 340 patients who were not in the ICU (P = .37). PE was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.8; P = .02); smoking (OR, 1.86; 95% CI: 1.0, 3.4; P = .04); and increased d-dimer (P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (P < .001), ferritin (P = .001), and interleukin-6 (P = .02) levels. Mortality in hospitalized patients was similar between patients with PE and those without PE (14% [13 of 102]; 95% CI: 8, 22] vs 13% [40 of 311]; 95% CI: 9, 17; P = .98), suggesting that diagnosis and treatment of PE were not associated with excess mortality. The d-dimer levels greater than 1600 ng/mL [8.761 nmol/L] helped predict PE with 100% sensitivity and 62% specificity in an external validation cohort. Embolic burden was higher in patients with right-sided heart strain among the patients with PE undergoing echocardiography (P = .03). Conclusion Pulmonary embolism (PE) incidence was 25% in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suspected of having PE. A d-dimer level greater than 1600 ng/mL [8.761 nmol/L] was sensitive for identification of patients who needed CT pulmonary angiography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Ketai in this issue.

Deep neural network for water/fat separation: Supervised training, unsupervised training, and no training.

PURPOSE: To use a deep neural network (DNN) for solving the optimization problem of water/fat separation and to compare supervised and unsupervised training. METHODS: The current T2∗ -IDEAL algorithm for solving water/fat separation is dependent on initialization. Recently, DNN has been proposed to solve water/fat separation without the need for suitable initialization. However, this approach requires supervised training of DNN using the reference water/fat separation images. Here we propose 2 novel DNN water/fat separation methods: 1) unsupervised training of DNN (UTD) using the physical forward problem as the cost function during training, and 2) no training of DNN using physical cost and backpropagation to directly reconstruct a single dataset. The supervised training of DNN, unsupervised training of DNN, and no training of DNN methods were compared with the reference T2∗ -IDEAL. RESULTS: All DNN methods generated consistent water/fat separation results that agreed well with T2∗ -IDEAL under proper initialization. CONCLUSION: The water/fat separation problem can be solved using unsupervised deep neural networks.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics-Based Machine Learning Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal PI-RADS 3 Lesions.

BACKGROUND: While Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 and 5 lesions typically warrant prostate biopsy and PI-RADS 1 and 2 lesions may be safely observed, PI-RADS 3 lesions are equivocal. PURPOSE: To construct and cross-validate a machine learning model based on radiomics features from T2 -weighted imaging (T2 WI) of PI-RADS 3 lesions to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), that is, pathological Grade Group ≥ 2. STUDY TYPE: Single-center retrospective study. POPULATION: A total of 240 patients were included (training cohort, n = 188, age range 43-82 years; test cohort, n = 52, age range 41-79 years). Eligibility criteria were 1) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy between 2015 and 2020; 2) PI-RADS 3 index lesion identified on multiparametric MRI; (3) biopsy performed within 1 year of MRI. The percentages of csPCa lesions were 10.6% and 15.4% in the training and test cohorts, respectively. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T; T2 WI turbo-spin echo, diffusion-weighted spin-echo echo planar imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with time-resolved T1-weighted imaging. ASSESSMENT: Multislice volumes-of-interest (VOIs) were drawn in the PI-RADS 3 index lesions on T2 WI. A total of 107 radiomics features (first-order histogram and second-order texture) were extracted from the segmented lesions. STATISTICAL TESTS: A random forest classifier using the radiomics features as input was trained and validated for prediction of csPCa. The performance of the machine learning classifier, prostate specific antigen (PSA) density, and prostate volume for csPCa prediction was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The trained random forest classifier constructed from the T2 WI radiomics features good and statistically significant area-under-the-curves (AUCs) of 0.76 (P = 0.022) for prediction of csPCa in the test set. Prostate volume and PSA density showed moderate and nonsignificant performance (AUC 0.62, P = 0.275 and 0.61, P = 0.348, respectively) for csPCa prediction in the test set. CONCLUSION: The machine learning classifier based on T2 WI radiomic features demonstrated good performance for prediction of csPCa in PI-RADS 3 lesions. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 2.

Increasing Utilization of MRI Before Prostate Biopsy in Black and Non-Black Men: An Analysis of the SEER-Medicare Cohort.

OBJECTIVE. The potential for significant disparities exists in the setting of increased adoption of prostate MRI. We sought to assess temporal trends in the utilization of MRI before prostate biopsy in a nationally representative sample. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using the SEER-Medicare linked database, we identified men undergoing prostate biopsy who had an MRI within 6 months of diagnosis of prostate cancer. Men were stratified according to whether they were biopsy naive or had undergone a prior negative prostate biopsy. RESULTS. We identified 82,483 men undergoing prostate biopsy in SEER-Medicare from 2008 to 2015 of whom 78,253 were biopsy naive and 4230 had a known prior negative biopsy. We found that the percentage of patients who received an MRI before biopsy has increased from 2008 to 2015 in biopsy-naive men (0.5-8.2%; p < .001), men with a prior negative biopsy (1.4-25.5%; p < .001), and overall (0.5-9.2%; p < .001). On multivariable modeling, the odds ratio (OR) of a patient undergoing an MRI before biopsy for Black men (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5; p < .001) was half that of White men, and the OR of MRI before biopsy in men from the Northeast (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.8-4.3; p < .001) was more than three times that of men from the West. CONCLUSION. The steady overall increase in the utilization of MRI before prostate biopsy since 2008 has been associated with significant racial and regional disparities in utilization.

Practice Patterns and Challenges of Performing and Interpreting Prostate MRI: A Survey by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Disease-Focused Panel.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to report on the practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. An electronic survey regarding prostate MRI practice patterns and challenges was sent to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology. RESULTS. The response rate was 15% (212/1446). Most (65%) of the respondents were academic abdominal radiologists with 1-5 (52%), 6-10 (20%), 11-20 (15%), and more than 20 (5%) years of experience in reporting prostate MRI. The numbers of prostate MRI examinations reported per week were 0-5 (43%), 6-10 (38%), 11-20 (12%), 21-30 (5%), and more than 30 (2%). Imaging was performed at 3 T (58%), 1.5 T (20%), or either (21%), and most examinations (83%) were performed without an endorectal coil. Highest b values ranged from 800 to 5000 s/mm2; 1400 s/mm2 (26%) and 1500 s/mm2 (30%) were the most common. Most respondents (79%) acquired dynamic contrast-enhanced images with temporal resolution of less than 10 seconds. Most (71%) of the prostate MRI studies were used for fusion biopsy. PI-RADS version 2 was used by 92% of the respondents and template reporting by 80%. Challenges to performing and interpreting prostate MRI were scored on a 1-5 Likert scale (1, easy; 2, somewhat easy; 3, neutral; 4, somewhat difficult; 5, very difficult). The median scores were 2 or 3 for patient preparatory factors. Image acquisition and reporting factors were scored 1-2, except for performing spectroscopy or using an endorectal coil, both of which scored 4. Acquiring patient history scored 2 and quality factors scored 3. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists perform prostate MRI at 3 T without an endorectal coil and interpret the images using PI-RADS version 2. Challenges include obtaining quality images, acquiring feedback, and variability in the interpretation of PI-RADS scores.

PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review.

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.

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Outcomes in Asian American Men: A Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: Asian American men have distinctly different prostate cancer epidemiology than other men. To our knowledge the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen in this population has not been assessed. We sought to define imaging and targeted biopsy outcomes in Asian American men compared to other men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We accrued a multicenter, prospective cohort of men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted and systematic biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen. The outcome of interest was a diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater) stratified by the PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) score and a history of negative biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of Asian American race on cancer detection. RESULTS: Of the 2,571 men 275 (11%) were Asian American. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 37% of Asian American men compared to 48% of men of other races (p <0.001). Asian American men were also less likely to be diagnosed with Grade Group 1 cancer (12% vs 18%, p=0.007). Additionally, there was significantly lower detection of significant cancer using PI-RADS 3 in Asian American men vs men of other races (12% vs 21%, p=0.032). On adjusted analysis Asian American men were less likely to be diagnosed with significant cancer (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.79, p <0.001) and Grade Group 1 cancer (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.84, p=0.005) than nonAsian men. CONCLUSIONS: Asian American men are less likely to be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer on targeted biopsy, illustrating the different performance of PI-RADS in this population. Conventional risk assessment tools should be modified when selecting Asian American men for biopsy.

Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

Developments in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: MRI-targeted prostate biopsy may be an attractive alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In this narrative review, we discuss the new developments that have occurred in the advancement of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, over the past 24 months. RECENT FINDINGS: MRI-targeted biopsy offers enhanced diagnostic accuracy, when compared with the current standard of care of systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, by decreasing the overall number of biopsies needed, maintaining or improving significant prostate cancer detection, and reducing the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. The necessity of combining systematic prostate biopsy with MRI-targeted biopsy is still debated. The use of MRI--ultrasound fusion systems for lesion-targeting is promising for optimizing significant cancer detection, but recent evidence suggests that additional cognitive biopsy cores are still useful in detecting additional cancers. SUMMARY: MRI-targeted biopsy in selected men with positive MRI offers a number of benefits over systematic biopsy in all men, and as such, may emerge as the new standard of care for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.