PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI.

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI.

Footprints in the scan: reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic tools in urology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an ever-growing focus on climate change and its impact on our society. With healthcare contributing a sizeable proportion of carbon emissions, the sector has a duty to address its environmental impact. We highlight the recent progress, current challenges, and future prospects for reducing the carbon footprint in diagnostic urology, specifically for imaging, without compromising patient care. RECENT FINDINGS: The review is separated into four key areas of recent research: the design of a green radiology department, considering both infrastructural as well as behavioural changes that promote sustainability; individual scanners, where we provide an update on recent technological advancements and changes in behaviour that may enhance sustainable use; responsible resource allocation, where it is important to derive the maximal benefit for patients through the smallest use of resources; the recent research regarding single versus reusable urologic endoscopes as a case example. SUMMARY: We offer an overview of the present sustainability landscape in diagnostic urology with the aim of encouraging additional research in areas where existing practices may be challenged. To protect the environment, attention is drawn to both more simple steps that can be taken as well as some more complex and expensive ones.

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate.

Background High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Purpose To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. Materials and Methods In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. Results In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. Conclusion Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04571840 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Almansour and Chernyak in this issue.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI.

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Promoting the use of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is a new metric to evaluate the diagnostic quality of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate. This study assesses the impact of an intervention, namely a prostate MRI quality training lecture, on the participant's ability to apply PI-QUAL. METHODS: Sixteen participants (radiologists, urologists, physicists, and computer scientists) of varying experience in reviewing diagnostic prostate MRI all assessed the image quality of ten examinations from different vendors and machines. Then, they attended a dedicated lecture followed by a hands-on workshop on MRI quality assessment using the PI-QUAL score. Five scans assessed by the participants were evaluated in the workshop using the PI-QUAL score for teaching purposes. After the course, the same participants evaluated the image quality of a new set of ten scans applying the PI-QUAL score. Results were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The reference standard was the PI-QUAL score assessed by one of the developers of PI-QUAL. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in average area under the curve for the evaluation of image quality from baseline (0.59 [95 % confidence intervals: 0.50-0.66]) to post-teaching (0.96 [0.92-0.98]), an improvement of 0.37 [0.21-0.41] (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A teaching course (dedicated lecture + hands-on workshop) on PI-QUAL significantly improved the application of this scoring system to assess the quality of prostate MRI examinations. KEY POINTS: • A significant improvement in the application of PI-QUAL for the assessment of prostate MR image quality was observed after an educational intervention. • Appropriate training on image quality can be delivered to those involved in the acquisition and interpretation of prostate MRI. • Further investigation will be needed to understand the impact on improving the acquisition of high-quality diagnostic prostate MR examinations.

Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. METHODS: We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement. RESULTS: The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%). CONCLUSION: We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted. KEY POINTS: • Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 - 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 - 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

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 .).

Identifying preventable risk factors for hospitalised asthma in young Aboriginal children: a whole-population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Australia has one of the highest rates of asthma worldwide. Indigenous children have a particularly high burden of risk determinants for asthma, yet little is known about the asthma risk profile in this population. AIM: To identify and quantify potentially preventable risk factors for hospitalised asthma in Australian Aboriginal children (1-4 years of age). METHODS: Birth, hospital and emergency data for all Aboriginal children born 2003-2012 in Western Australia were linked (n=32 333). Asthma was identified from hospitalisation codes. ORs and population attributable fractions were calculated for maternal age at birth, remoteness, area-level disadvantage, prematurity, low birth weight, maternal smoking in pregnancy, mode of delivery, maternal trauma and hospitalisations for acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) in the first year of life. RESULTS: There were 705 (2.7%) children hospitalised at least once for asthma. Risk factors associated with asthma included: being hospitalised for an ARTI (OR 4.06, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.78), area-level disadvantage (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.94), being born at <33 weeks' gestation (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.52 to 4.32) or birth weight <1500 g (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.99). The proportion of asthma attributable to an ARTI was 31%, area-level disadvantage 18%, maternal smoking 5%, and low gestational age and birth weight were 3%-7%. We did not observe a higher risk of asthma in those children who were from remote areas. CONCLUSION: Improving care for pregnant Aboriginal women as well as for Aboriginal infants with ARTI may help reduce the burden of asthma in the Indigenous population.

NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.

Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. METHODS: A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. RESULTS: Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53-98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. CONCLUSIONS: Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations.

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria for magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) at two different academic centres. METHODS: The PRECISE criteria score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. The system is a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 or 2 implies regression of a previously visible lesion, 3 denotes stability and 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients (40 from each centre) on AS with a biopsy-confirmed low- or intermediate-risk PCa (i.e. ≤ Gleason 3 + 4 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 20 ng/ml) and ≥ 2 prostate MR scans was performed. Two blinded radiologists reported all scans independently and scored the likelihood of radiological change (PRECISE score) from the second scan onwards. Cohen's κ coefficients and percent agreement were computed. RESULTS: Agreement was substantial both at a per-patient and a per-scan level (κ = 0.71 and 0.61; percent agreement = 79% and 81%, respectively) for each PRECISE score. The agreement was superior (κ = 0.83 and 0.67; percent agreement = 90% and 91%, respectively) when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at University College London (UCL) (κ = 0.81 vs 0.55 on a per-patient level and κ = 0.70 vs 0.48 on a per-scan level, respectively). The discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement (80% vs 78% and 86% vs 75%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Expert radiologists achieved substantial reproducibility for the PRECISE scoring system, especially when data were pooled together according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). KEY POINTS: • Inter-reader agreement between two experienced prostate radiologists using the PRECISE criteria was substantial. • The agreement was higher when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (i.e. PRECISE 1-3 vs PRECISE 4 and 5). • Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at UCL, but the discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement.

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.

Pathological Findings and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Concordance at Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Local Recurrence following Partial Ablation Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.

PURPOSE: We describe the pathological characteristics of recurrence following high intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation in men treated with salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. We assessed the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging before salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in these men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 men underwent salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after high intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation from 2012 to 2018. We compared clinicopathological characteristics before ultrasound and before salvage prostatectomy after ultrasound to histopathology on salvage prostatectomy. We assessed infield recurrence, out of field disease, positive surgical margins and magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity before salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Before high intensity focused ultrasound 55.9% of men had multifocal disease and 47.1% had Gleason 3 + 3 disease outside the treatment field. Median time to salvage prostatectomy was 16 months (IQR 11-26). Indications for salvage prostatectomy were infield recurrence in 55.8% of cases, out of field recurrence in 20.6%, and infield and out of field recurrence in 23.5%. On salvage prostatectomy histopathology revealed significant cancer, defined as ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) 2 or greater, infield in 97.1% of cases, out of field in 81.3%, and infield and out of field in 79.4%. Of the cases 82.4% were adversely reclassified at salvage prostatectomy compared to 67.6% before ultrasound. The positive surgical margin rate was 40.0%. Of the positive margins 84.6% were in the region of previous ultrasound despite wide excision, including pT2 in 28.6%, pT3 in 47.6% and size 3 mm or greater, pT3 or multifocal (ie significant) in 31.4%. After ultrasound the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging for infield and out of field recurrence was 81.8% and 60.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may confer a higher risk of positive surgical margins, upgrading and up-staging than primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. High intensity focused ultrasound carries a risk of recurrence inside and outside the ablation zone. This information may inform salvage surgical planning and patient counseling regarding the choice of initial therapy and salvage treatment after high intensity focused ultrasound.

HIST1H1E heterozygous protein-truncating variants cause a recognizable syndrome with intellectual disability and distinctive facial gestalt: A study to clarify the HIST1H1E syndrome phenotype in 30 individuals.

Histone Gene Cluster 1 Member E, HIST1H1E, encodes Histone H1.4, is one of a family of epigenetic regulator genes, acts as a linker histone protein, and is responsible for higher order chromatin structure. HIST1H1E syndrome (also known as Rahman syndrome, OMIM #617537) is a recently described intellectual disability (ID) syndrome. Since the initial description of five unrelated individuals with three different heterozygous protein-truncating variants (PTVs) in the HIST1H1E gene in 2017, we have recruited 30 patients, all with HIST1H1E PTVs that result in the same shift in frame and that cluster to a 94-base pair region in the HIST1H1E carboxy terminal domain. The identification of 30 patients with HIST1H1E variants has allowed the clarification of the HIST1H1E syndrome phenotype. Major findings include an ID and a recognizable facial appearance. ID was reported in all patients and is most frequently of moderate severity. The facial gestalt consists of a high frontal hairline and full lower cheeks in early childhood and, in later childhood and adulthood, affected individuals have a strikingly high frontal hairline, frontal bossing, and deep-set eyes. Other associated clinical features include hypothyroidism, abnormal dentition, behavioral issues, cryptorchidism, skeletal anomalies, and cardiac anomalies. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently abnormal with a slender corpus callosum a frequent finding.

Targeted biopsy of the prostate: does this result in improvement in detection of high-grade cancer or the occurrence of the Will Rogers phenomenon?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients with Gleason 3 + 4 cancer on transrectal biopsy are upgraded after undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy and whether this has implications for current clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis we examined 107 consecutive patients presenting at a single tertiary referral centre (July 2012 to July 2016) with prostate cancer of Gleason score 3 + 4 on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided systematic non-targeted biopsy who then underwent a multiparametric MRI followed by MRI-targeted transperineal prostate biopsy for accurate risk stratification and localization. RESULTS: The patients' mean (sd) age was 67.0 (8.0) years, and they had a median (interquartile range) PSA concentration of 6.2 (4.7-9.6) ng/mL. Of the 107 patients, 84 (78.5%) had Gleason 3 + 4 on both transrectal systematic biopsy and transperineal MRI-targeted biopsy. Nineteen patients (17.8%) were upgraded to Gleason 4 + 3, three patients (3.0%) to Gleason 4 + 4 and one patient (1.0%) to Gleason 4 + 5. These differences were significant (P = 0.0006). Likewise, 23/107 patients (22%) had higher-risk disease based on their targeted biopsies. CONCLUSION: The use of targeted biopsy in men with impalpable cancer, ultimately upgraded one in five patients from favourable-intermediate- to unfavourable-intermediate-risk disease or worse. This has significant clinical implications for men considering active surveillance or radical treatment. Our risk calculators must now be validated using these data from targeted biopsy as the technique becomes widely adopted.

Medium-term oncological outcomes in a large cohort of men treated with either focal or hemi-ablation using high-intensity focused ultrasonography for primary localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with PCa treated with primary focal HIFU at two centres by six treating clinicians were assessed. Patients were submitted to either focal ablation or hemi-ablation using HIFU (Sonablate 500). The primary objective of the study was to assess medium-term oncological outcomes, defined as overall survival, freedom from biopsy failure, freedom from any further treatment and freedom from radical treatment after focal HIFU. The secondary objective was to evaluate the changes in pathological features among patients treated with focal HIFU over time. We also assessed the relationship between year of surgery and 5-year retreatment probability. RESULTS: A total of 1032 men treated between November 2005 and October 2017 were assessed. The median age was 65 years and median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL. The majority of patients had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or above (80.3%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 36 (14-64) months. The overall survival rates at 24, 60 and 96 months were 99%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Freedom from biopsy failure, defined as absence of Gleason 3 + 4 disease, was 84%, 64% and 54% at 24, 60 and 96 months. Freedom from any further treatment was 85%, 59% and 46% at 24, 60 and 96 months, respectively. Approximately 70% of patients who were retreated received a second focal treatment. Freedom from radical treatment was 98%, 91% and 81% at 24, 60 and 96 months. During the study period, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients undergoing focal HIFU with Gleason 3 + 4 disease and with T2 stage disease as defined by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Finally, there was a reduction over time in the proportion of patients undergoing re-treatment within 5 years of first treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.

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 cancer detection using quantitative T2 and T2 -weighted imaging: The effects of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors in men on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: T2 -weighted imaging (T2 -WI) information has been used in a qualitative manner in the assessment of prostate cancer. Quantitative derivatives (T2 relaxation time) can be generated from T2 -WI. These outputs may be useful in helping to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer from background signal. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate changes in quantitative T2 parameters in lesions and noncancerous tissue of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo daily for 6 months. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION/SUBJECTS: Forty men randomized to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Multiparametric 3T MRI at baseline and 6 months. This included a multiecho MR sequence for quantification of the T2 relaxation times, in three regions of interest (index lesion, noncancerous peripheral [PZ] and transitional [TZ] zones). A synthetic signal contrast (T2 Q contrast) between lesion and noncancerous tissue was assessed using quantitative T2 values. Signal contrast was calculated using the T2 -weighted sequence (T2 W contrast). ASSESSMENT: Two radiologists reviewed the scans in consensus according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v. 2) guidelines. STATISTICAL TESTS: Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U-tests, Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: When compared to noncancerous tissue, shorter T2 values were observed within lesions at baseline (83.5 and 80.5 msec) and 6 months (81.5 and 81.9 msec) in the placebo and dutasteride arm, respectively. No significant differences for T2 W contrast at baseline and after 6 months were observed, both in the placebo (0.40 [0.29-0.49] vs. 0.43 [0.25-0.49]; P = 0.881) and dutasteride arm (0.35 [0.24-0.47] vs. 0.37 [0.22-0.44]; P = 0.668). There was a significant, positive correlation between the T2 Q contrast and the T2 W contrast values (r = 0.786; P < 0.001). DATA CONCLUSION: The exposure to antiandrogen therapy did not significantly influence the T2 contrast or the T2 relaxation values in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1646-1653.

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.