Contemporary patterns of local ablative therapies for prostate cancer at United States cancer centers: results from a national registry.

PURPOSE: To describe the national-level patterns of care for local ablative therapy among men with PCa and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with the receipt of these techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with clinically localized PCa between 2010 and 2017. The main outcome was receipt of local tumor ablation with either cryo- or laser-ablation, and "other method of local tumor destruction including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)". Patient level, hospital level, and demographic variables were collected. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted to identify separately patient- and hospital-level predictors of receipt of local ablative therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 11,278 patients received ablative therapy, of whom 78.8% had cryotherapy, 15.6% had laser, and 5.7% had another method including HIFU. At the patient level, men with intermediate-risk PCa were more likely to be treated with local ablative therapy (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11; p = 0.05), as were men with Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.43; p < 0.01), men between 71 and 80 years (OR 3.70; 95% CI 3.43-3.99; p < 0.01), men with Medicare insurance (OR 1.38; 95% 1.31-1.46; p < 0.01), and an income < $47,999 (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.01). At the hospital-level, local ablative therapy was less likely to be performed in academic/research facilities (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32-0.64; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Local ablative therapy for PCa treatment is more commonly offered among older and comorbid patients. Future studies should investigate the uptake of these technologies in non-hospital-based settings and in light of recent changes in insurance coverage.

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.

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.

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.

Quantitative MR imaging assessment of prostate gland deformation before and during MR imaging-guided brachytherapy.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to document the deformations that occur between pretreatment magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and intraoperative MR imaging during brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images obtained at 1.5 and 0.5 T in 10 patients with prostate cancer were analyzed for changes in the shape and substructure of the prostate. Three-dimensional models of the prostate were obtained. The authors measured anteroposterior dimension; total gland, peripheral zone, and central gland volumes; transverse dimension; and superoinferior height. RESULTS: Gland deformations were seen at visual inspection of the three-dimensional models. The anteroposterior dimension of the total gland, central gland, and peripheral zone increased from 1.5- to 0.5-T imaging (median dimension, 4.9, 1.5, and 1.8 mm, respectively), and the increase was greatest in the peripheral zone (P < .05, all comparisons). There was a decrease in the transverse dimension from 1.5- to 0.5-T imaging (median, 4.5 mm; P < .005). The total gland volume and the superoinferior height did not show a statistically significant change. CONCLUSION: There were significant deformations in the shape of the prostate, especially in the peripheral zone, between the two imaging studies. The likely causes of the shape change are differences in rectal filling (endorectal coil used in 1.5-T studies vs obturator in 0.5-T studies) and/or changes in patient position (supine vs lithotomy). These findings suggest that pretreatment images alone may not be reliable for accurate therapy planning. It may be useful to integrate pre-and intraoperative data.