Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial.

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

What Type of Prostate Cancer Is Systematically Overlooked by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? An Analysis from the PROMIS Cohort.

BACKGROUND: All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). OBJECTIVE: To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8-17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45-58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35-45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores (p = 0.0007; p < 0.0001) and shorter MCCL (median difference: 3 mm [5 vs 8 mm], p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1-3) than cancers that were detected. No tumours with overall Gleason score > 3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3-5; 95% CI 0-6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4-5; 95% CI 0-8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7-8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2-13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0-5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7-5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI.

Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy to Transperineal Template Mapping Biopsies Stratified by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score in the PROMIS Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic and transperineal template mapping biopsies with a 5 mm sampling frame stratified by the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert score in the PROMIS (Prostate MR Imaging Study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men due to undergo prostate biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and transperineal template mapping and transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies, which were performed and reported while blinded to other test results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was primarily defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 6 mm or more of any grade. It was secondarily defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 4 mm or more of any grade. RESULTS: In 41 months 740 men were recruited at a total of 11 centers, of whom 576 underwent all 3 tests. Eight of the 150 men (5.1%) with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 1-2 had any Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy. Of the 75 men in whom transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy showed Gleason 3 + 3 of any maximum cancer core length 61 (81%) had Gleason 3 + 4, 8 (11%) had Gleason 4 + 3 and 0 (0%) had Gleason 4 + 5 or greater disease. For definition 1 (clinically significant prostate cancer) transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy sensitivity remained stable and low across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores of 35% to 52%. For definition 2 (clinically significant prostate cancer and any cancer) sensitivity increased with higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. The negative predictive value varied due to varying disease prevalence but for all cancer thresholds it declined with increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores 1-2 transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy revealed Gleason 3 + 4 disease in only 1 of 20 men. Further, for any clinically significant prostate cancer definition transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy had poor sensitivity and variable but a low negative predictive value across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. Men who undergo transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy without targeting in the setting of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 3 to 5 should be advised to undergo repeat (targeted) biopsy.

Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.

BACKGROUND: Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway. DESIGN: A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model. SETTING: Eleven NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy. RESULTS: Diagnostic study - a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation - the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer. LIMITATIONS: The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Men with high serum prostate specific antigen usually undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy). TRUS-biopsy can cause side-effects including bleeding, pain, and infection. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We did this multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study to test diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI and TRUS-biopsy against a reference test (template prostate mapping biopsy [TPM-biopsy]). Men with prostate-specific antigen concentrations up to 15 ng/mL, with no previous biopsy, underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6 mm or longer. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01292291. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2012, and November 9, 2015, we enrolled 740 men, 576 of whom underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. On TPM-biopsy, 408 (71%) of 576 men had cancer with 230 (40%) of 576 patients clinically significant. For clinically significant cancer, MP-MRI was more sensitive (93%, 95% CI 88-96%) than TRUS-biopsy (48%, 42-55%; p<0·0001) and less specific (41%, 36-46% for MP-MRI vs 96%, 94-98% for TRUS-biopsy; p<0·0001). 44 (5·9%) of 740 patients reported serious adverse events, including 8 cases of sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Using MP-MRI to triage men might allow 27% of patients avoid a primary biopsy and diagnosis of 5% fewer clinically insignificant cancers. If subsequent TRUS-biopsies were directed by MP-MRI findings, up to 18% more cases of clinically significant cancer might be detected compared with the standard pathway of TRUS-biopsy for all. MP-MRI, used as a triage test before first prostate biopsy, could reduce unnecessary biopsies by a quarter. MP-MRI can also reduce over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and improve detection of clinically significant cancer. FUNDING: PROMIS is funded by the UK Government Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment Programme, (Project number 09/22/67). This project is also supported and partly funded by UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre and The Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and is coordinated by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at UCL. It is sponsored by University College London (UCL).

Defining the level of evidence for technology adoption in the localized prostate cancer pathway.

New technologies in prostate cancer are attempting to change the current prostate cancer pathway by aiming to reduce harms while maintaining the benefits associated with screening, diagnosis, and treatment. In this article, we discuss the optimal evaluation that new technologies should undergo to provide level 1 evidence typically required to change the practice. With this in mind, we focus on feasible and pragmatic trials that could be delivered in a timely fashion by many centers while retaining primary outcomes that focus on clinically meaningful outcomes.