Performance of an ultra-fast deep-learning accelerated MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer compared to a standard multiparametric protocol.

OBJECTIVES: To establish and evaluate an ultra-fast MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to the standard multiparametric (mp) protocol, reducing scan time and maintaining adequate diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective single-center study included consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa between December 2022 and March 2023. A PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI protocol was acquired in a 3 T scanner (scan time: 25 min 45 sec). In addition, two deep-learning (DL) accelerated sequences (T2- and diffusion-weighted) were acquired, serving as a screening protocol (scan time: 3 min 28 sec). Two readers evaluated image quality and the probability of PCa regarding PI-RADSv2.1 scores in two sessions. The diagnostic performance of the screening protocol with mpMRI serving as the reference standard was derived. Inter- and intra-reader agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: We included 77 patients with 97 lesions (mean age: 66 years; SD: 7.7). Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%/100% and 89%/98% (cut-off ≥ PI-RADS 4) for reader 1 (R1) and reader 2 (R2), respectively. Mean image quality was 3.96 (R1) and 4.35 (R2) for the standard protocol vs. 4.74 and 4.57 for the screening protocol (p < 0.05). Inter-reader agreement was moderate (κ: 0.55) for the screening protocol and substantial (κ: 0.61) for the multiparametric protocol. CONCLUSION: The ultra-fast screening protocol showed similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality compared to the mpMRI in under 15% of scan time, improving efficacy and enabling the implementation of screening protocols in clinical routine. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The ultra-fast protocol enables examinations without contrast administration, drastically reducing scan time to 3.5 min with similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality. This facilitates patient-friendly, efficient examinations and addresses the conflict of increasing demand for examinations at currently exhausted capacities. KEY POINTS: Time-consuming MRI protocols are in conflict with an expected increase in examinations required for prostate cancer screening. An ultra-fast MRI protocol shows similar performance and better image quality compared to the standard protocol. Deep-learning acceleration facilitates efficient and patient-friendly examinations, thus improving prostate cancer screening capacity.

Determinants of receipt of prostate cancer screening among men living with HIV enrolled in an urban HIV Clinic in the United States over the period of 2000-2020.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is projected to account for the greatest proportion of cancer-related burden among men with HIV. However, incidence is reportedly lower than in men without HIV, potentially due to differences in screening. Factors influencing receipt of screening in men with HIV are unknown. We described receipt of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and assessed factors for association with receipt of PSA test. METHODS: Demographics, measures of HIV and related care, and non-HIV care were assessed for association with receipt of first PSA test in men ≥40 years old each calendar year in 2000-2020 using univariable and multivariable Poisson regression. Models were additionally stratified by calendar period to identify changes in determinants of PSA test as prostate cancer screening guidelines changed. RESULTS: Men (n = 2,063) 72% Non-Hispanic Black, median age of 47 (IQR: 41, 53), contributed median of 4.7 years (IQR: 2.3, 10.0) of follow-up. Receipt of antiretroviral therapy (aIRR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.55), engagement in HIV care (aIRR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.66, 2.62), history of testosterone-replacement therapy (aIRR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.50), urologist evaluation (aIRR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.05), and receipt of PSA test in preceding two years (no elevated PSA aIRR = 2.37; 95% CI: 2.16, 2.61; elevated PSA aIRR = 4.35; 95% CI: 3.24, 5.84) were associated with PSA testing in men aged 50 or older. Associations varied across calendar time. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest men with greater interaction with healthcare are more likely to receive PSA test. Measures of control of HIV did not appear to influence the decision to screen.

Digital Rectal Exam in Prostate Cancer Screening and Elevated PSA Work-up-Is there a role anymore?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening tools, particularly digital rectal examination (DRE), are under scrutiny. This review assesses the utility of DRE in PCa screening. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies reaffirm the DRE's sensitivity and specificity, a higher PCa detection rate with PSA in conjunction with DRE, and a slightly elevated risk of clinically significant PCa (CSPC) in those with elevated PSA and suspicious DRE. Studies confirm high accuracy of MRI in identifying CSPC, with ongoing research exploring its screening potential. DRE alone lacks accuracy for PCa screening, often resulting in missed diagnoses and unnecessary biopsies. Its supplementary use with PSA marginally increases detection rates of identifying a small percentage of CSPC, but the benefit remains questionable. Emerging evidence suggests MRI has the potential as a superior screening tool compared to DRE, although direct comparative studies are lacking. Overall, the DRE has a limited role in current PCa screening.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.

MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening, which relies on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, is a contentious topic that received negative attention due to the low sensitivity and specificity of PSA to detect clinically significant PCa. In this context, due to the higher sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), several trials investigate the feasibility of "MRI-only" screening approaches, and question if PSA testing may be replaced within prostate cancer screening programs. METHODS: This narrative review discusses the current literature and the outlook on the potential of MRI-based PCa screening. RESULTS: Several prospective randomized population-based trials are ongoing. Preliminary study results appear to favor the "MRI-only" approach. However, MRI-based PCa screening programs face a variety of obstacles that have yet to be fully addressed. These include the increased cost of MRI, lack of broad availability, differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation protocols, and lack of long-term impact on cancer-specific mortality. Partly, these issues are being addressed by shorter and simpler MRI approaches (5-20 min bi-parametric MRI), novel quality indicators (PI-QUAL) and the implementation of radiomics (deep learning, machine learning). CONCLUSION: Although promising preliminary results were reported, MRI-based PCa screening still lack long-term data on crucial endpoints such as the impact of MRI screening on mortality. Furthermore, the issues of availability, cost-effectiveness, and differences in MRI acquisition and interpretation still need to be addressed.

Impact of PSA testing on secondary care costs in England and Wales: estimates from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

BACKGROUND: Screening men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. We aimed to estimate the likely budgetary impact on secondary care in England and Wales to inform screening decision makers. METHODS: The Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer study (CAP) compared a single invitation to men aged 50-69 for a PSA test with usual care (no screening). Routinely collected hospital care data were obtained for all men in CAP, and NHS reference costs were mapped to each event via Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. Secondary-care costs per man per year were calculated, and cost differences (and population-level estimates) between arms were derived annually for the first five years following randomisation. RESULTS: In the first year post-randomisation, secondary-care costs averaged across all men (irrespective of a prostate cancer diagnosis) in the intervention arm (n = 189279) were £44.80 (95% confidence interval: £18.30-£71.30) higher than for men in the control arm (n = 219357). Extrapolated to a population level, the introduction of a single PSA screening invitation could lead to additional secondary care costs of £314 million. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a single PSA screening test for men aged 50-69 across England and Wales could lead to very high initial secondary-care costs.

A Web-Based Decision Aid for Informed Prostate Cancer Screening: Development and Pilot Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen-based routine screening is not recommended for the general population due to conflicting results with mortality reduction. We aimed to develop a web-based decision aid (DA) for informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) development process model, we developed our DA based on patient and clinician interviews and multidisciplinary expert discussions. The prototype consisted of predicting individual prostate cancer risk and informed decision-making, including knowledge, risk and benefit, cost, personal value, and decision making. We conducted a pilot study on 101 healthy men, evaluating the effectiveness of DA by measuring knowledge, attitude, and intention to screen before and after using the DA, as well as decisional conflict and usefulness after using the DA. RESULTS: Of the 101 participants (median age 60 [50-69] years), 84% had not undergone screening for prostate cancer in the past two years. After using the DA, knowledge on prostate cancer screening increased (mean score [of 10] before versus after: 6.85 ± 1.03 versus 7.57 ± 1.25; P < 0.001), and intention to not screen increased from 27.7% to 51.5% (P < 0.001), but attitude toward screening did not change (P = 0.564). After use of the DA, 79 participants reported no decisional conflict, and the usefulness score was high (mean score [of 100] 77.35 ± 7.69), with 85% of participants reporting that the DA helped with decision making. CONCLUSION: Our web-based DA yielded increased knowledge, decreased screening intention, and high perceived usefulness. These findings indicate potential clinical relevance, especially among younger individuals.

The Impact of Receipt of Information on Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing on Screening with the Prostate-Specific Antigen Test.

There is controversy on prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the USA, and as a result, there has been an increased push for physicians to have a thorough discussion with patients on the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer screening with the PSA blood test. Prior studies showed that pre-screening discussions increased the likelihood of PSA testing. This study is aimed at examining the impact of discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the PSA test among men that fit the prostate cancer screening guidelines determined by the American Urological Association (AUA). This cross-sectional study used secondary data from the 2018 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in the USA. The analytic sample was determined based on the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for prostate cancer screening (n = 54,607). Approximately, 89.5% of men underwent PSA testing. The odds of PSA testing were higher for men who received information on only the advantages of PSA testing (OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 2.80, 4.13), only the disadvantages of PSA testing (OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.02, 2.28), and both advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing (OR = 2.99, 95% CI = 2.46, 3.63) compared to men who received no information. Discussions with men, that meet the requirements for prostate cancer screening, about the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing increased the likelihood that men would undergo PSA testing.

Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Biparametric Prostate MRI, Radiomics, and Kallikreins: A Retrospective Multicenter Study of Men With a Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2, remains a challenge. Prostate MRI radiomics and blood kallikreins have been proposed as tools to improve the performance of biparametric MRI (bpMRI). PURPOSE: To develop and validate radiomics and kallikrein models for the detection of csPCa. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 543 men with a clinical suspicion of csPCa, 411 (76%, 411/543) had kallikreins available and 360 (88%, 360/411) did not take 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors. Two data splits into training, validation (split 1: single center, n = 72; split 2: random 50% of pooled datasets from all four centers), and testing (split 1: 4 centers, n = 288; split 2: remaining 50%) were evaluated. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 3 T/1.5 T, TSE T2-weighted imaging, 3x SE DWI. ASSESSMENT: In total, 20,363 radiomic features calculated from manually delineated whole gland (WG) and bpMRI suspicion lesion masks were evaluated in addition to clinical parameters, prostate-specific antigen, four kallikreins, MRI-based qualitative (PI-RADSv2.1/IMPROD bpMRI Likert) scores. STATISTICAL TESTS: For the detection of csPCa, area under receiver operating curve (AUC) was calculated using the DeLong's method. A multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the predictive power of combining variables. The values of P-value < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: The highest prediction performance was achieved by IMPROD bpMRI Likert and PI-RADSv2.1 score with AUC = 0.85 and 0.85 in split 1, 0.85 and 0.83 in split 2, respectively. bpMRI WG and/or kallikreins demonstrated AUCs ranging from 0.62 to 0.73 in split 1 and from 0.68 to 0.76 in split 2. AUC of bpMRI lesion-derived radiomics model was not statistically different to IMPROD bpMRI Likert score (split 1: AUC = 0.83, P-value = 0.306; split 2: AUC = 0.83, P-value = 0.488). DATA CONCLUSION: The use of radiomics and kallikreins failed to outperform PI-RADSv2.1/IMPROD bpMRI Likert and their combination did not lead to further performance gains. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Routine systematic prostate biopsies not replaced by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging improves the performance of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics through a better selection of patients. Objectives: The aim of the study was to study the detection rate (DR) of systematic and targeted cognitive biopsies in a cohort with the previous negative systematic biopsies. A secondary objective was to describe the value of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) in the detection of clinically significant PCa (CSPCa). Methods: We designed a prospective, single-center, and comparative study to determine the DR of systematic and targeted cognitive biopsies. The clinical and pathological characteristics of each patient were described. Results: A total of 111 patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System lesions > 3 were included in the study. PCa was detected in 41.4% (46 of 111 patients); 42 (91.3%) were detected by systematic biopsy and 30 (65.2%) by targeted biopsy. CSPCa was detected in 26 (23.4%), 23 (88.5%) by systematic biopsy, and 21 (76.9%) by targeted biopsy. PSAd > 0.15 was directly associated with CSPCa. Conclusion: The detection of PCa by systematic biopsy in this series was higher than 80%; hence, its routine use should not be replaced by targeted biopsy, since it continues to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in patients with prior negative biopsies.

Differences in the relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer among Black and White non-Hispanic men.

PURPOSE: Studies finding lower incidence rates of prostate cancer among men with diabetes have been primarily conducted in White non-Hispanic (WNH) populations. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer among Black (BNH) and White non-Hispanic men. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2011 to 2015 to compare incidence rates and tumor characteristics between BNH and WNH men by diabetes status. Age-adjusted incidence rates and corresponding rate ratios (RR) by diabetes status were calculated overall and by tumor grade, stage, and PSA level separately for BNH and WNH men. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare tumor characteristics among men with prostate cancer in the numerator, both within and across race/ethnic groups. RESULTS: Overall age-adjusted incidence rates were significantly lower in men with diabetes compared to those without among WNH men [RR = 0.88 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.86-0.90] but there was no difference in rates by diabetes status among BNH men (RR = 1.01 95% CI 0.96-1.07). Men with diabetes were less likely to be diagnosed with distant-staged tumors compared to those without diabetes in both race/ethnic groups but the magnitude of difference by diabetes status was greater in BNH [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.52 95% CI 0.42-0.64] than WNH (OR = 0.88 95% CI 0.81-0.95) men (p-value for interaction < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer differed between BNH and WNH men. The differences could have implications in evaluating the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in men with diabetes across racial/ethnic subgroups.

The Effectiveness of Shared Compared to Informed Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in a High-Risk African American Population: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the United States in African Americans (AA) are higher than in Caucasians. Eastern Cuyahoga County in Ohio is majority AA and is considered an underserved population particularly vulnerable to healthcare disparities. There is a paucity of data about shared decision making among high-risk AA men with regard to prostate cancer screening. This study aims to examine shared versus informed decision making (SDM versus IDM) in a randomized, control trial among a large, high-risk AA population. METHODS: Patients were included in annual one-day outreach events, each held over 3 years (2017-2019), and were randomized at each event into IDM (control) and SDM (investigational) groups and then were offered screening via prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). The primary endpoints were proportion of participants over 40 who did not demonstrate decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening measured by the SURE score, as well as change of knowledge score about prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Overall, 175 patients were enrolled in the trial; 79 in the SDM arm and 96 in the IDM arm. The investigational (SDM) arm had 3/79 (3.9%) conflict versus 6/96 (6.4%) in the control (IDM) arm (p = 0.74). With regard to knowledge improvement, the SDM cohort demonstrated improvement following educational tools for 66/79 (81%) of participants versus 76/96 (79%) in the IDM cohort (p = 0.85). There was no difference in the proportion (63%) of participants in either group who found the information very helpful (using a Likert scale). CONCLUSIONS: Our education-based study showed no significant difference between SDM and IDM with regard to decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening. The study also demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge about prostate cancer screening in a high-risk AA population in both groups. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations; however, the study can serve as a benchmark for future studies in this very important topic.

PSA-based machine learning model improves prostate cancer risk stratification in a screening population.

CONTEXT: The majority of prostate cancer diagnoses are facilitated by testing serum Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) levels. Despite this, there are limitations to the diagnostic accuracy of PSA. Consideration of patient demographic factors and biochemical adjuncts to PSA may improve prostate cancer risk stratification. We aimed to develop a contemporary, accurate and cost-effective model based on objective measures to improve the accuracy of prostate cancer risk stratification. METHODS: Data were collated from a local institution and combined with patient data retrieved from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer screening Trial (PLCO) database. Using a dataset of 4548 patients, a machine learning model was developed and trained using PSA, free-PSA, age and free-PSA to total PSA (FTR) ratio. RESULTS: The model was trained on a dataset involving 3638 patients and was then tested on a separate set of 910 patients. The model improved prediction for prostate cancer (AUC 0.72) compared to PSA alone (AUC 0.63), age (AUC 0.52), free-PSA (AUC 0.50) and FTR alone (AUC 0.65). When an operating point is chosen such that the sensitivity of the model is 80% the specificity of the model is 45.3%. The benefit in AUC secondary to the model was related to sample size, with AUC of 0.64 observed when a subset of the cohort was assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a dense neural network model improved the diagnostic accuracy in screening for prostate cancer. These results demonstrate an additional utility of machine learning methods in prostate cancer risk stratification when using biochemical parameters.

Comparison of risk-calculator and MRI and consecutive pathways as upfront stratification for prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: In biopsy naïve men suspected for prostate cancer (PCa), it is uncertain how a risk-calculator and bi-parametric (bp) MRI should be combined to decide on prostate biopsy, balancing cancer detection rates and diagnostic burden. METHODS: Prospective, single centre cohort study (August 2018-April 2019). All patients referred with serum PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination received bpMRI and risk for PCa was calculated using the ERSPC risk-calculator. Men with either PI-RADS ≥ 3 or calculator risk-score > 20% were recommended to undergo systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB) of any visible lesion (reference pathway). Eight different derived diagnostic pathways were compared to the reference pathway regarding cancer detection, number of biopsies and bpMRIs performed. RESULTS: Of 496 patients; 233 (47%) had a risk-calculator score of > 20%; 201 (41%) had PI-RADS score ≥ 3. The reference pathway detected PCa in 32.1%, clinically significant (cs) PCa in 19.4%, with 41% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only risk-calculator: 76% csPCa diagnosed, 53% avoided biopsies and 100% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only bpMRI: 97% csPCa diagnosed, 59% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. A pathway with risk-calculator first, followed only with bpMRI when high-risk: 81% csPCa diagnosed, 72% avoided biopsies and 53% avoided bpMRI. CONCLUSION: Upfront bpMRI as a risk stratification tool outperforms risk-calculator in detecting significant disease. Applying the risk-calculator first to decide on performing an MRI, avoids 1 out of 2 MRIs, but up to 1 out of 5 significant cancers are missed.

Impact on prostate cancer clinical presentation after non-screening policies at a tertiary-care medical center- a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In May 2012 the US Preventive Task Force issued a 'D' recommendation against routine PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer. This recommendation was implemented progressively in our health system. The aim of this study is to define its impact on prostate cancer staging at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from 2012 until 2015 at a single center. We analyzed the total number of biopsies performed per year and the positive biopsy rate. For those patients with positive biopsies we recorded diagnostic PSA, clinical stage, ISUP grade group, nodal involvement and metastatic status at diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1686 biopsies were analyzed. The positive biopsy rate increased from 25% in 2012 to 40% in 2015 (p < 0.05). No change in median PSA was noticed (p = 0.627). The biopsies detected higher ISUP grades (p = 0.000). In addition, newly diagnosed prostate cancer presented a higher clinical stage (p = 0.005), higher metastatic rates (p = 0.03) and a tendency to higher lymph node involvement although not statistically significant (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: After the 2012 recommendation, patients presented a higher probability of a prostate cancer diagnosis, with a more adverse ISUP group, clinical stage and metastatic disease. These results should be taken into consideration to implement a risk adapted strategy for prostate cancer screening.

Examining the relationship between diabetes and prostate cancer through changes in screening guidelines.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have found that men with diabetes are at reduced risk of prostate cancer compared to men without diabetes. The lower risk could be due to biologic differences and/or a diagnosis bias from use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test as a screening and diagnostic tool. We sought to further examine the relationship between diabetes and incidence of prostate cancer and examine the potential impact of changes in PSA screening guidelines in 2008 and 2012. METHODS: We used 2004-2015 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data and limited the study population to men aged 67-74 with at least 2 years of continuous enrollment. Using the 5% Medicare sample as the denominator and prostate cancer cases as the numerator, we calculated age-adjusted rate ratios (RR) in 2006-2011 and 2012-2015 by diabetes status, overall and by tumor grade. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare tumor characteristics by diabetes status. RESULTS: Men with diabetes had lower incidence rates of prostate cancer compared to men without diabetes in 2006-2011 [RR = 0.89 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.91] and 2012-2015 (RR = 0.92 95% CI 0.89-0.95) but the slight attenuation toward the null in 2012-2015 was primarily due to the change in RRs for low-grade tumors. CONCLUSION: We found differences in the risk and characteristics of prostate cancer by diabetes status and that some risks have changed over time as guidelines have changed. With lower PSA use in the more recent time-period, rates of low-grade tumors have become more similar by diabetes status.

Qualitative and Quantitative Reporting of a Unique Biparametric MRI: Towards Biparametric MRI-Based Nomograms for Prediction of Prostate Biopsy Outcome in Men With a Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer (IMPROD and MULTI-IMPROD Trials).

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate has been shown to improve the risk stratification of men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA). However, long acquisition time, high cost, and inter-center/reader variability of a routine prostate multiparametric MRI limit its wider adoption. PURPOSE: To develop and validate nomograms based on unique rapid biparametric MRI (bpMRI) qualitative and quantitative derived variables for prediction of clinically significant cancer (SPCa). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective analyses of single (IMPROD, NCT01864135) and multiinstitution trials (MULTI-IMPROD, NCT02241122). POPULATION: 161 and 338 prospectively enrolled men who completed the IMPROD and MULTI-IMPROD trials, respectively. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: IMPROD bpMRI: 3T/1.5T, T2 -weighted imaging, three separate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions: 1) b-values 0, 100, 200, 300, 500 s/mm2 ; 2) b values 0, 1500 s/mm2 ; 3) values 0, 2000 s/mm2 . ASSESSMENT: The primary endpoint of the combined trial analysis was the diagnostic accuracy of the combination of IMPROD bpMRI and clinical variables for detection of SPCa. STATISTICAL TESTS: Logistic regression models were developed using IMPROD trial data and validated using MULTI-IMPROD trial data. The model's performance was expressed as the area under the curve (AUC) values for the detection of SPCa, defined as ISUP Gleason Grade Group ≥2. RESULTS: A model incorporating clinical variables had an AUC (95% confidence interval) of 0.83 (0.77-0.89) and 0.80 (0.75-0.85) in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The corresponding values for a model using IMPROD bpMRI findings were 0.93 (0.89-0.97), and 0.88 (0.84-0.92), respectively. Further addition of the quantitative DWI-based score did not improve AUC values (P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: A prediction model using qualitative IMPROD bpMRI findings demonstrated high accuracy for predicting SPCa in men with an elevated PSA. Online risk calculator: http://petiv.utu.fi/multiimprod/ Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1556-1567.

Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification in Men With a Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer Using a Unique Biparametric MRI and Expression of 11 Genes in Apparently Benign Tissue: Evaluation Using Machine-Learning Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification of men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (cSPCa) remains challenging despite the increasing use of MRI. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a unique biparametric MRI protocol (IMPROD bpMRI) combined with clinical and molecular markers in men with cSPCa. STUDY TYPE: Prospective single-institutional clinical trial (NCT01864135). SUBJECTS: Eighty men with cSPCa. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T, surface array coils. Two T2 -weighted and three diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions: 1) b-values 0, 100, 200, 300, 500 s/mm2 ; 2) b-values 0,1500 s/mm2 ; 3) b-values 0, 2000 s/mm2 . ASSESSMENT: IMPROD bpMRI examinations were qualitatively (IMPROD bpMRI Likert score) and quantitatively (DWI-based Gleason grade score) prospectively reported. Men with IMPROD bpMRI Likert 3-5 had two targeted biopsies followed by 12-core systematic biopsies (SB); those with IMPROD bpMRI Likert 1-2 had only SB. Additionally, 2-core from normal-appearing prostate areas were obtained for the mRNA expression of ACSM1, AMACR, CACNA1D, DLX1, PCA3, PLA2G7, RHOU, SPINK1, SPON2, TMPRSS2-ERG, and TDRD1 measured by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. STATISTICAL TESTS: Univariate and multivariate analysis using regularized least-squares, feature selection and tournament leave-pair-out cross-validation (TLPOCV), as well as 10 random splits of the data in training-testing sets, were used to evaluate the mRNA, clinical and IMPROD bpMRI parameters in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (SPCa) defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4. The evaluation metric was the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: IMPROD bpMRI Likert demonstrated the highest TLPOCV AUC of 0.92. The tested clinical variables had AUC 0.56-0.73, while the mRNA and additional IMPROD bpMRI parameters had AUC 0.50-0.67 and 0.65-0.89 respectively. The combination of clinical and mRNA biomarkers produced TLPOCV AUC of 0.87, the highest TLPOCV performance without including IMPROD bpMRI Likert. DATA CONCLUSION: The qualitative IMPROD bpMRI Likert score demonstrated the highest accuracy for SPCa detection compared with the tested clinical variables and mRNA biomarkers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1540-1553.

Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Active surveillance is a good management option for some men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we examine the evidence for several topics related to active surveillance. We examine: (1) which patients should be eligible for active surveillance, (2) what follow-up (monitoring) protocols should be used for men on surveillance, (3) what is the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on surveillance, and (4) what is the prognosis for men who choose surveillance compared to radical treatment. In many instances, the evidence is evolving or lacking. In these situations, we highlight the limitations of the data.