Quantitative diffusion MRI in prostate cancer: Image quality, what we can measure and how it improves clinical assessment.

Diffusion-weighted imaging is a dependable method for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. In prostate tissue, there are several compartments that can be distinguished from each other, based on different water diffusion decay signals observed. Alterations in cell architecture, such as a relative increase in tumor infiltration and decrease in stroma, will influence the observed diffusion signal in a voxel due to impeded random motion of water molecules. The amount of restricted diffusion can be assessed quantitatively by measuring the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value. This is traditionally calculated using a monoexponential decay formula represented by the slope of a line produced between the logarithm of signal intensity decay plotted against selected b-values. However, the choice and number of b-values and their distribution, has a significant effect on the measured ADC values. There have been many models that attempt to use higher-order functions to better describe the observed diffusion signal decay, requiring an increased number and range of b-values. While ADC can probe heterogeneity on a macroscopic level, there is a need to optimize advanced diffusion techniques to better interrogate prostate tissue microstructure. This could be of benefit in clinical challenges such as identifying sparse tumors in normal prostate tissue or better defining tumor margins. This paper reviews the principles of diffusion MRI and novel higher order diffusion signal analysis techniques to improve the detection of prostate cancer.

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

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

Radiologists' Contribution to Variation in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men With Prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVE: Assess radiologists' contribution to variation in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multidisciplinary prostate cancer program. Men undergoing mpMRI examinations from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with elevated PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and biopsy within 6 months pre- or post-MRI or prostatectomy within 6 months post-mpMRI were included. Univariate and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression assessed impact of patient, provider, mpMRI examination, mpMRI report, and pathology factors on the diagnosis of Grade Group ≥ 2 csPCa. RESULTS: Study cohort included 960 MRIs in 928 men, mean age 64.0 years (SD ± 7.4), and 59.8% (555 of 928) had csPCa. Interpreting radiologist was not significant individually (P > .999) or combined with mpMRI ordering physician and physician performing biopsy or prostatectomy (P = .41). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, P = .04), PI-RADS category 4 (OR 2.52, P < .001), and PI-RADS category 5 (OR 4.99, P < .001) assessment compared with no focal lesion; PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.46, P < .001), 0.15 to 0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.77, P < .001), or ≥0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 4.52, P < .001); private insurance (reference = Medicare, OR 0.52, P = .001), and unambiguous extraprostatic extension on mpMRI (OR 2.94, P = .01) were independently associated with csPCa. PI-RADS 3 assessment (OR 1.18, P = .56), age (OR 0.99, P = .39), and African American race (OR 0.90, P = .75) were not. DISCUSSION: Although there is known in-practice variation in radiologists' interpretation of mpMRI, in our multidisciplinary prostate cancer program we found no significant radiologist-attributable variation in csPCa detection.

Is perfect the enemy of good? Weighing the evidence for biparametric MRI in prostate cancer.

The role of multiparametric MRI in diagnosis, staging and treatment planning for prostate cancer is well established. However, there remain several challenges to widespread adoption. One such challenge is the duration and cost of the examination. Abbreviated exams omitting contrast-enhanced sequences may help address this challenge. In this review, we will discuss the rationale for biparametric MRI for detection and characterization of clinically significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy and synthesize the published literature. We will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages to this approach and lay out a conceptual cost/benefit analysis regarding adoption of biparametric MRI.

A Pilot Study of Multidimensional Diffusion MRI for Assessment of Tissue Heterogeneity in Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this exploratory study were to investigate the feasibility of multidimensional diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MddMRI) in assessing diffusion heterogeneity at both a macroscopic and microscopic level in prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was obtained from 46 subjects who underwent 3.0-T prostate multiparametric MRI, complemented with a prototype spin echo-based MddMRI sequence in this institutional review board-approved study. Prostate cancer tumors and comparative normal tissue from each patient were contoured on both apparent diffusion coefficient and MddMRI-derived mean diffusivity (MD) maps (from which microscopic diffusion heterogeneity [MKi] and microscopic diffusion anisotropy were derived) using 3D Slicer. The discriminative ability of MddMRI-derived parameters to differentiate PCa from normal tissue was determined using the Friedman test. To determine if tumor diffusion heterogeneity is similar on macroscopic and microscopic scales, the linear association between SD of MD and mean MKi was estimated using robust regression (bisquare weighting). Hypothesis testing was 2 tailed; P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: All MddMRI-derived parameters could distinguish tumor from normal tissue in the fixed-effects analysis (P < 0.0001). Tumor MKi was higher (P < 0.05) compared with normal tissue (median, 0.40; interquartile range, 0.29-0.52 vs 0.20-0.18; 0.25), as was tumor microscopic diffusion anisotropy (0.55; 0.36-0.81 vs 0.20-0.15; 0.28). The MKi could not be predicted (no significant association) by SD of MD. There was a significant correlation between tumor volume and SD of MD (R2 = 0.50, slope = 0.008 µm2/ms per millimeter, P < 0.001) but not between tumor volume and MKi. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study demonstrates that MddMRI provides novel information on MKi and microscopic anisotropy, which differ from measures at the macroscopic level. MddMRI has the potential to characterize tumor tissue heterogeneity at different spatial scales.

Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: PI-RADS v2 dictates that dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging be used to further classify peripheral zone (PZ) cases that receive a diffusion-weighted imaging equivocal score of three (DWI3), a positive DCE resulting in an increase in overall assessment score to a four, indicative of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). However, the accuracy of DCE in predicting csPCa in DWI3 PZ cases is unknown. This study sought to determine the frequency with which DCE changes the PI-RADS v2 DWI3 assessment category, and to determine the overall accuracy of DCE-MRI in equivocal PZ DWI3 lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients with pathologically proven PCa who underwent prostate mpMRI at 3T and subsequent radical prostatectomy. PI-RADS v2 assessment categories were determined by a radiologist, aware of a diagnosis of PCa, but blinded to final pathology. csPCa was defined as a Gleason score ≥ 7 or extra prostatic extension at pathology review. Performance characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of DCE in assigning a csPCa assessment in PZ lesions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 271 men with mean age of 59 ± 6 years mean PSA 6.7 ng/mL were included. csPCa was found in 212/271 (78.2%) cases at pathology, 209 of which were localized in the PZ. DCE was necessary to further classify (45/209) of patients who received a score of DWI3. DCE was positive in 29/45 cases, increasing the final PI-RADS v2 assessment category to a category 4, with 16/45 having a negative DCE. When compared with final pathology, DCE was correct in increasing the assessment category in 68.9% ± 7% (31/45) of DWI3 cases. CONCLUSION: DCE increases the accuracy of detection of csPCa in the majority of PZ lesions that receive an equivocal PI-RADS v2 assessment category using DWI.

Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 with ADC parameters to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and to determine the impact of csPC definitions on diagnostic performance of ADC and PI-RADSv2. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve pathology-proven peripheral zone PC patients who underwent 3T prostate MRI, using high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (b = 0, 1400) were outlined volumetrically. Mean ADCT, mean ADCN, ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. PI-RADSv2 was assigned. Three csPC definitions were used: (A) Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3; (B) GS ≥ 3 + 4; (C) MRI-based tumor volume >0.5 cc. Performances of ADC parameters and PI-RADSv2 in identifying csPC were measured using nonparametric comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves using the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Eighty five cases met eligibility requirements. Diagnostic performances (AUC) in identifying csPC using three definitions were: (A) ADCT (0.83) was higher than PI-RADSv2 (0.65, p = 0.006); (B) ADCT (0.86) was higher than ADCratio (0.68, p < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, p = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADCratio (0.56, p = 0.02). ADCT performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (p = 0.038 and p = 0.01, respectively). ADCratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (p = 0.01). PI-RADSv2 performance was not affected by csPC definition. CONCLUSIONS: When csPC was defined by GS, ADC parameters provided better csPC discrimination than PI-RADSv2, with ADCT providing best result. When csPC was defined by MRI-calculated volume, PI-RADSv2 provided better discrimination than ADCratio. csPC definition did not affect PI-RADSv2 diagnostic performance.

MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroid treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids that uses MRI-guided focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy relative to uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost effectiveness of three first-line treatment strategies: MRI-guided focused ultrasound, UAE, and hysterectomy. Treatment-specific short- and long-term utilities, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were incorporated, allowing us to conduct an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, using a societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY to designate a strategy as cost effective. Sensitivity analyses were subsequently performed on all key parameters. RESULTS. In the base-case analysis, UAE as a first-line treatment of symptomatic fibroids was the most effective and expensive strategy (22.75 QALYs; $22,968), followed by MRI-guided focused ultrasound (22.73 QALYs; $20,252) and hysterectomy (22.54 QALYs; $11,253). MRI-guided focused ultrasound was cost effective relative to hysterectomy, with an associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $47,891/QALY. The ICER of UAE relative to MRI-guided focused ultrasound was $234,565/QALY, exceeding the WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, therefore rendering MRI-guided focused ultrasound also cost effective relative to UAE. In sensitivity analyses, results were robust to changes in most parameters but were sensitive to changes in probabilities of recurrence, symptom relief, and quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSION. First-line treatment of eligible women with MRI-guided focused ultra-sound is a cost-effective noninvasive strategy. For those not eligible for MRI-guided focused ultra-sound, UAE remains a cost-effective option. These recommendations integrate both the short- and long-term decrements in quality of life associated with the specific treatment modalities.

Quality-of-life assessment of fibroid treatment options and outcomes.

PURPOSE: To obtain utilities (a unit of measure of a person's relative preferences for different health states compared with death or worst possible outcome) for uterine fibroids before and after treatment and to measure short-term utilities for the following uterine fibroid treatments: abdominal hysterectomy, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery, and uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. The waiting trade-off (WTO) method, a variation on the time trade-off (TTO) method, is used to obtain utilities for diagnostic procedures on the basis of the fact that people wait longer to avoid noxious tests and/or procedures. The WTO method provides short-term quality of life tolls in terms of quality-adjusted life-weeks by scaling wait times with pre- and posttreatment utilities. Utilities for uterine fibroids before and after treatment were obtained with the TTO method and a visual analog scale (VAS) by using a questionnaire administered by means of a phone interview. WTO wait times were adjusted for quality of life with VAS and TTO utilities and a transformation of VAS. Wait times were compared by using nonparametric tests. The study participants included 62 patients who had undergone abdominal hysterectomy, 74 who had undergone UAE, and 61 who had undergone MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery. RESULTS: Quality of life increased with all treatments. The median WTO wait time was higher for hysterectomy (21.6 weeks) than for UAE or MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery (14.1 weeks for both) (P < .05). Quality-adjusted life-week tolls were smaller when scaled according to TTO than when scaled according to VAS or transformation of VAS. CONCLUSION: Quality of life increased after all fibroid treatments. WTO is feasible for assessing the quality-adjusted morbidity of treatment procedures. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11100704/-/DC1.