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

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

The rapid assessment for prostate imaging and diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID. RESULTS: The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre-RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9-34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre-level variations.

Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm of any grade [PROMIS definition 1]) in those patients who underwent a biopsy. Adverse events were defined according to Good Clinical Practice and trial regulatory guidelines. The trial is registered on ISRCTN, 38541912, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712684, with recruitment and follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

INTRODUCTION: Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer. METHODS: Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired-cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference standard). RESULTS: When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods. CONCLUSION: Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modified for low prevalence of the target condition.

A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared clinically significant prostate cancer detection by visual estimation and image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study included patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions undergoing visual estimation or image fusion targeted transperineal biopsy (April 2017-March 2020). Propensity score matching was performed using demographics (age and ethnicity), clinical features (prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging variables (number of lesions, PI-RADS® score, index lesion diameter, whether the lesion was diffuse and radiological T stage) and biopsy factors (number of cores, operator experience and anesthetic type). Matched groups were compared overall and by operator grade, PI-RADS score, lesion multiplicity, prostate volume and anesthetic type using targeted-only and targeted plus systematic histology. Multiple clinically significant prostate cancer thresholds were evaluated (primary: Gleason ≥3+4). RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients with a median age of 67.3 years (IQR 61.3-72.4), median prostate specific antigen of 7.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.2) and 1,430 total lesions underwent targeted-only biopsies (visual estimation: 372 patients, 494 lesions; image fusion: 699 patients, 936 lesions). A total of 770 patients with a median age of 67.4 years (IQR 61-72.1), median prostate specific antigen of 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.6) and 919 total lesions underwent targeted plus systematic biopsies (visual estimation: 271 patients, 322 lesions; image fusion: 499 patients, 597 lesions). Matched comparisons demonstrated no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection between visual estimation and image fusion (primary: targeted-only 54% vs 57.4%, p=0.302; targeted plus systematic 51.2% vs 58.2%, p=0.123). Senior urologists had significantly higher detection rates using image fusion (primary: targeted-only 45.4% vs 63.7%, p=0.001; targeted plus systematic 39.4% vs 64.5%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection, although image fusion may be superior in experienced hands.

Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 489 pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI-RADS v2 by expert uro-radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI-RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a 'per score' basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60-72) years and the median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level was 7 (5-10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI-RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI-RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI-RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.

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

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

Use of Imaging to Optimise Prostate Cancer Tumour Volume Assessment for Focal Therapy Planning.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rapid advances in imaging of the prostate have facilitated the development of focal therapy and provided a non-invasive method of estimating tumour volume. Focal therapy relies on an accurate estimate of tumour volume for patient selection and treatment planning so that the optimal energy dose can be delivered to the target area(s) of the prostate while minimising toxicity to surrounding structures. This review provides an overview of different imaging modalities which may be used to optimise tumour volume assessment and critically evaluates the published evidence for each modality. RECENT FINDINGS: Multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) has become the standard tool for patient selection and guiding focal therapy treatment. The current evidence suggests that mp-MRI may underestimate tumour volume, although there is a large variability in results. There remain significant methodological challenges associated with pathological processing and accurate co-registration of histopathological data with mp-MRI. Advances in different ultrasound modalities are showing promise but there has been limited research into tumour volume estimation. The role of PSMA PET/CT is still evolving and further investigation is needed to establish if this is a viable technique for prostate tumour volumetric assessment. mp-MRI provides the necessary tumour volume information required for selecting patients and guiding focal therapy treatment. The potential for underestimation of tumour volume should be taken into account and an additional margin applied to ensure adequate treatment coverage. At present, there are no other viable image-based alternatives although advances in new technologies may refine volume estimations in the future.

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

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

Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy in daily practice: Results of a multicenter study of 2115 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of Koelis fusion biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the everyday practice. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 2115 patients from 15 institutions in four European countries undergoing transrectal Koelis fusion biopsy from 2010 to 2017. A variable number of target (usually 2-4) and random cores (usually 10-14) were carried out, depending on the clinical case and institution habits. The overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates were assessed, evaluating the diagnostic role of additional random biopsies. The cancer detection rate was correlated to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging features and clinical variables. RESULTS: The mean number of targeted and random cores taken were 3.9 (standard deviation 2.1) and 10.5 (standard deviation 5.0), respectively. The cancer detection rate of Koelis biopsies was 58% for all cancers and 43% for clinically significant prostate cancer. The performance of additional, random cores improved the cancer detection rate of 13% for all cancers (P < 0.001) and 9% for clinically significant prostate cancer (P < 0.001). Prostate cancer was detected in 31%, 66% and 89% of patients with lesions scored as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Clinical stage and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of prostate cancer detection in multivariate analyses. Prostate-specific antigen was associated with prostate cancer detection only for clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Koelis fusion biopsy offers a good cancer detection rate, which is increased in patients with a high Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and clinical stage. The performance of additional, random cores seems unavoidable for correct sampling. In our experience, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and clinical stage are predictors of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer detection; prostate-specific antigen is associated only with clinically significant prostate cancer detection, and a higher number of biopsy cores are not associated with a higher cancer detection rate.

Pathological Concordance between Prostate Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy Using Transperineal Sector Mapping Biopsies: Validation and Comparison with Transrectal Biopsies.

Background/Aims/Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of systematic transperineal sector mapping biopsy (TPSMB) in predicting Gleason score (GS) at radical prostatectomy (RP), to compare its accuracy with standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (TRUS) and to establish the clinical impact of discordance between biopsies and RP on subsequent surgical management. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-five patients from 2008 to 2013 who underwent RP following TPSMB (n = 204) or TRUS (n = 51), were included in this retrospective multi-institutional study. Concordance between biopsies and RPs GS was assessed both as percentages and with Cohen's Kappa coefficient. All mismatches between biopsies and RP were assessed for significance by 3 urologists using the Delphi method. RESULTS: No differences were present among the groups. Concordance between biopsy and RP GS was 75.49% for TPSMB and 64.70% for TRUS. Kappa coefficient was 0.42 and 0.39 respectively. The Delphi method showed lower clinical impact of GS discordances for TPSMB with 7.8% of patients having significant change, thus being potentially more suitable for other treatment modalities, compared to TRUS (13.7%). CONCLUSIONS: TPSMB had a higher accuracy for predicting the GS grade at RP showing superior GS concordance compared with standard TRUS. TPSMB provides an effective technique for systematic prostate biopsy to evaluate overall prostate cancer GS.

Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis. AIM: To understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs. RESULTS: Twenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47-80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36-55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced. CONCLUSION: Prostate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care.

Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy.

Approaches and techniques used for diagnostic prostate biopsy have undergone considerable evolution over the past few decades: from the original finger-guided techniques to the latest MRI-directed strategies, from aspiration cytology to tissue core sampling, and from transrectal to transperineal approaches. In particular, increased adoption of transperineal biopsy approaches have led to reduced infectious complications and improved antibiotic stewardship. Furthermore, as image fusion has become integral, these novel techniques could be incorporated into prostate biopsy methods in the future, enabling 3D-ultrasonography fusion reconstruction, molecular targeting based on PET imaging and autonomous robotic-assisted biopsy.

Circulating Chromosome Conformation Signatures Significantly Enhance PSA Positive Predicting Value and Overall Accuracy for Prostate Cancer Detection.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) has a high lifetime prevalence (one out of six men), but currently there is no widely accepted screening programme. Widely used prostate specific antigen (PSA) test at cut-off of 3.0 ng/mL does not have sufficient accuracy for detection of any prostate cancer, resulting in numerous unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with benign disease and false reassurance in some men with PCa. We have recently identified circulating chromosome conformation signatures (CCSs, Episwitch® PCa test) allowing PCa detection and risk stratification in line with standards of clinical PCa staging. The purpose of this study was to determine whether combining the Episwitch PCa test with the PSA test will increase its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: n = 109 whole blood samples of men enrolled in the PROSTAGRAM screening pilot study and n = 38 samples of patients with established PCa diagnosis and cancer-negative controls from Imperial College NHS Trust were used. Samples were tested for PSA, and the presence of CCSs in the loci encoding for of DAPK1, HSD3B2, SRD5A3, MMP1, and miRNA98 associated with high-risk PCa identified in our previous work. RESULTS: PSA > 3 ng/mL alone showed a low positive predicted value (PPV) of 0.14 and a high negative predicted value (NPV) of 0.93. EpiSwitch alone showed a PPV of 0.91 and a NPV of 0.32. Combining PSA and Episwitch tests has significantly increased the PPV to 0.81 although reducing the NPV to 0.78. Furthermore, integrating PSA, as a continuous variable (rather than a dichotomised 3 ng/mL cut-off), with EpiSwitch in a new multivariant stratification model, Prostate Screening EpiSwitch (PSE) test, has yielded a remarkable combined PPV of 0.92 and NPV of 0.94 when tested on the independent prospective cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that combining the standard PSA readout with circulating chromosome conformations (PSE test) allows for significantly enhanced PSA PPV and overall accuracy for PCa detection. The PSE test is accurate, rapid, minimally invasive, and inexpensive, suggesting significant screening diagnostic potential to minimise unnecessary referrals for expensive and invasive MRI and/or biopsy testing. Further extended prospective blinded validation of the new combined signature in a screening cohort with low cancer prevalence would be the recommended step for PSE adoption in PCa screening.

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of MRI in comparison to PSA and ultrasound: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

BACKGROUND: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study showed that a short, non-contrast MRI detected more significant cancers with similar rates of biopsy compared to PSA. Herein, we compare the expected and perceived burden of PSA, MRI and ultrasound as screening tests. METHODS: IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 men conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. The screening tests were serum PSA, non-contrast MRI and ultrasound. If any test was screen-positive, a prostate biopsy was performed. Participants completed an Expected Burden Questionnaire (EBQ) and Perceived Burden Questionnaire (PBQ) before and after each screening test. RESULTS: The overall level of burden for MRI and PSA was minimal. Few men reported high levels of anxiety, burden, embarrassment or pain following either MRI or PSA. Participants indicated an overall preference for MRI after completing all screening tests. Of 408 participants, 194 (47.5%) had no preference, 106 (26.0%) preferred MRI and 79 (19.4%) preferred PSA. This indicates that prior to screening, participants preferred MRI compared to PSA (+6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-8.4, p = 0.02) and after completing screening, the preference for MRI was higher (+21.1%, 95% CI 14.9-27.1, p < 0.001). The proportion of participants who strongly agreed with repeating the test was 50.5% for ultrasound, 65% for MRI and 68% for PSA. A larger proportion of participants found ultrasound anxiety-inducing, burdensome, embarrassing and painful compared to both MRI and PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Prostagram MRI and PSA are both acceptable as screening tests among men aged 50-69 years. Both tests were associated with minimal amounts of anxiety, burden, embarrassment and pain. The majority of participants preferred MRI over PSA and ultrasound. REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03702439 .

An Evaluation of Screening Pathways Using a Combination of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen: Results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer has been fraught with under- and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might detect more grade group ≥2 cancers with similar rates of biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate strategies that combined PSA and MRI to select men based in the community for a prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired cohort study of 408 men aged 50-69 yr conducted at seven UK primary care practice and two imaging centres (from October 10, 2018 to May 15, 2019). INTERVENTION: All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2-weighted and diffusion), and transrectal ultrasound (b-mode and elastography). If any test was screen positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image-fusion targeted biopsies were taken if the MRI or ultrasound was positive. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We conducted an analysis, set out in the statistical plan a priori, comparing 13 different pathways including PSA-alone, MRI-alone, and a range of PSA thresholds and MRI scores. The performance of each pathway was evaluated focusing on the trade-offs between biopsy referral rates and detection of grade group ≥2 cancers. A targeted biopsy was performed only where the PROSTAGRAM MRI showed a lesion score of 3, 4, or 5. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The standard PSA pathway (PSA ≥3 ng/ml + systematic biopsy) would lead to 10% of men being referred for a biopsy and a 1.0% detection rate of grade group ≥2 cancers. Pathways that relied on MRI alone set at a threshold score of 3 for a biopsy led to higher biopsy rates, but with benefit of high cancer detection rates. The pathway that combined an initial low PSA threshold (≥1.0 ng/ml) and MRI score ≥4 accurately identified a high rate of grade group ≥2 cancers (2.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.3-4.6) while recommending fewer patients for a biopsy (7.1%, 95% confidence interval 4.9-10.2). The results are pertinent to only one screening round, the impact of repeat screening rounds is not evaluated, and the required MRI capacity is currently lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the trade-off that exists between reducing excessive numbers of biopsies and maintaining grade group ≥2 cancer detection rates. A pathway that combines PSA ≥1 ng/ml and MRI score ≥4 maintains the detection of grade group ≥2 cancers while recommending fewer men for biopsies and would be the preferred strategy to evaluate in future studies at the first screening round. PATIENT SUMMARY: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study shows that PROSTAGRAM magnetic resonance imaging in men with a prostate-specific antigen level of ≥1.0 ng/ml could be a promising pathway to evaluate in future screening trials.

Experiences of 'traditional' and 'one-stop' MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England: a qualitative study with patients and GPs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand and explore patient and general practitioner (GP) experiences of 'traditional' and 'one-stop' prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, analysed using inductive thematic analysis SETTING: Patients were recruited from National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in London and in Devon; GPs were recruited via National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Networks. Interviews were conducted in person or via telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who had undergone a MRI scan of the prostate as part of their diagnostic work-up for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one patient for possible prostate cancer in the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: 22 patients (aged 47-80 years) and 10 GPs (6 female, aged 38-58 years) were interviewed. Patients described three key themes: cancer beliefs in relation to patient's attitudes towards prostate cancer;communication with their GP and specialist having a significant impact on experience of the pathway and pathway experience being influenced by appointment and test burden. GP interview themes included: the challenges of dealing with imperfect information in the current pathway; managing uncertainty in identifying patients with possible prostate cancer and sharing this uncertainty with them, and other social, cultural and personal contextual influences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and GPs reported a range of experiences and views of the current prostate cancer diagnostic pathways in England. Patients valued 'one-stop' pathways integrating prostate MRI and diagnostic consultations with specialists over the more traditional approach of several hospital appointments. GPs remain uncertain how best to identify patients needing referral for urgent prostate cancer testing due to the lack of accurate triage and risk assessment strategies.

Direct mail from primary care and targeted recruitment strategies achieved a representative uptake of prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer screening studies has previously not been able to reflect a diverse group of participants. We evaluated a range of recruitment strategies and their ability to recruit from the Black population and areas of deprivation. METHODS: IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 participants conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. All participants underwent screening with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and transrectal ultrasound. A number of recruitment strategies were embedded including direct mail, media campaigns, and a targeted recruitment strategy to increase participation among harder-to-reach groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,316 expressions of interest were received (20th September 2018 to 15th May 2019). The direct mail strategy generated 317 expressions of interest from 1707 invitation letters. Overall 387 expressions of interest were received following the targeted strategy and 612 from media campaigns. The recruitment target was met 19 months ahead of the schedule. Of the 411 participants, ethnicity was White (38.0%), Black (32.4%), Asian (23.0%), and Other/Mixed (4.4%) ethnic groups. This higher recruitment of Black men was driven by the targeted recruitment strategy. A comparison of recruitment methods showed marked differences between ethnicities recruited (P < 0.001). The proportion of Black participants recruited by direct mail (8%) was similar to the prevalence of Black local population (9%) whereas, targeted recruitment was 88% (115) and media recruitment 1.7% (1). The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) distribution was similar to the local population with marginal higher recruitment from more deprived areas; proportion increasing from 26% to 40% from least to most deprived IMD quintiles (Quintiles 4/5 vs. 1/2). Direct mail recruited a close-to-normal distribution for deprivation with targeted recruitment trending towards recruiting from most deprived areas. CONCLUSION: Direct mail and targeted strategies designed to engage a diverse population can achieve a representative uptake from Black participants and those from a lower socioeconomic group.