Evaluation of a Cascaded Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Prostate Lesion Detection at Biparametric MRI.

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves prostate cancer (PCa) detection compared with systematic biopsy, but its interpretation is prone to interreader variation, which results in performance inconsistency. Artificial intelligence (AI) models can assist in mpMRI interpretation, but large training data sets and extensive model testing are required. Purpose To evaluate a biparametric MRI AI algorithm for intraprostatic lesion detection and segmentation and to compare its performance with radiologist readings and biopsy results. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective registry included consecutive patients with suspected or known PCa who underwent mpMRI, US-guided systematic biopsy, or combined systematic and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy between April 2019 and September 2022. All lesions were prospectively evaluated using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. The lesion- and participant-level performance of a previously developed cascaded deep learning algorithm was compared with histopathologic outcomes and radiologist readings using sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Results A total of 658 male participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 61-71 years]) with 1029 MRI-visible lesions were included. At histopathologic analysis, 45% (294 of 658) of participants had lesions of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) 2 or higher. The algorithm identified 96% (282 of 294; 95% CI: 94%, 98%) of all participants with clinically significant PCa, whereas the radiologist identified 98% (287 of 294; 95% CI: 96%, 99%; P = .23). The algorithm identified 84% (103 of 122), 96% (152 of 159), 96% (47 of 49), 95% (38 of 40), and 98% (45 of 46) of participants with ISUP GG 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In the lesion-level analysis using radiologist ground truth, the detection sensitivity was 55% (569 of 1029; 95% CI: 52%, 58%), and the PPV was 57% (535 of 934; 95% CI: 54%, 61%). The mean number of false-positive lesions per participant was 0.61 (range, 0-3). The lesion segmentation DSC was 0.29. Conclusion The AI algorithm detected cancer-suspicious lesions on biparametric MRI scans with a performance comparable to that of an experienced radiologist. Moreover, the algorithm reliably predicted clinically significant lesions at histopathologic examination. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

AI-powered radiomics: revolutionizing detection of urologic malignancies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to highlight the integration of artificial intelligence-powered radiomics in urologic oncology, focusing on the diagnostic and prognostic advancements in the realm of managing prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers. RECENT FINDINGS: As artificial intelligence continues to shape the medical imaging landscape, its integration into the field of urologic oncology has led to impressive results. For prostate cancer diagnostics, machine learning has shown promise in refining clinically-significant lesion detection, with some success in deciphering ambiguous lesions on multiparametric MRI. For kidney cancer, radiomics has emerged as a valuable tool for better distinguishing between benign and malignant renal masses and predicting tumor behavior from CT or MRI scans. Meanwhile, in the arena of bladder cancer, there is a burgeoning emphasis on prediction of muscle invasive cancer and forecasting disease trajectory. However, many studies showing promise in these areas face challenges due to limited sample sizes and the need for broader external validation. SUMMARY: Radiomics integrated with artificial intelligence offers a pioneering approach to urologic oncology, ushering in an era of enhanced diagnostic precision and reduced invasiveness, guiding patient-tailored treatment plans. Researchers must embrace broader, multicentered endeavors to harness the full potential of this field.

PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND. Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS. This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater. RESULTS. The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL2). The v2.0 group (n = 177) and v2.1 group (n = 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively; p = .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%, p = .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%, p = .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%, p > .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all p > .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (n = 121 for v2.0; n = 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%, p = .51). CONCLUSION. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.

Is prostatic adenocarcinoma with cribriform architecture more difficult to detect on prostate MRI?

BACKGROUND: Cribriform (CBFM) pattern on prostate biopsy has been implicated as a predictor for high-risk features, potentially leading to adverse outcomes after definitive treatment. This study aims to investigate whether the CBFM pattern containing prostate cancers (PCa) were associated with false negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and determine the association between MRI and histopathological disease burden. METHODS: Patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), combined 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic (SB) and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy were retrospectively queried for the presence of CBFM pattern at biopsy. Biopsy cores and lesions were categorized as follows: C0 = benign, C1 = PCa with no CBFM pattern, C2 = PCa with CBFM pattern. Correlation between cancer core length (CCL) and measured MRI lesion dimension were assessed using a modified Pearson correlation test for clustered data. Differences between the biopsy core groups were assessed with the Wilcoxon-signed rank test with clustering. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, a total of 131 consecutive patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy and pre-biopsy mpMRI were included. Clinical feature analysis included 1572 systematic biopsy cores (1149 C0, 272 C1, 151 C2) and 736 MRI-targeted biopsy cores (253 C0, 272 C1, 211 C2). Of the 131 patients with confirmed CBFM pathology, targeted biopsy (TBx) alone identified CBFM in 76.3% (100/131) of patients and detected PCa in 97.7% (128/131) patients. SBx biopsy alone detected CBFM in 61.1% (80/131) of patients and PCa in 90.8% (119/131) patients. TBx and SBx had equivalent detection in patients with smaller prostates (p = 0.045). For both PCa lesion groups there was a positive and significant correlation between maximum MRI lesion dimension and CCL (C1 lesions: p < 0.01, C2 lesions: p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in CCL between C1 and C2 lesions for T2 scores of 3 and 5 (p ≤ 0.01, p ≤ 0.01, respectively) and PI-RADS 5 lesions (p ≤ 0.01), with C2 lesions having larger CCL, despite no significant difference in MRI lesion dimension. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of disease for CBFM-containing tumors is difficult to capture on mpMRI. When comparing MRI lesions of similar dimensions and PIRADS scores, CBFM-containing tumors appear to have larger cancer yield on biopsy. Proper staging and planning of therapeutic interventions is reliant on accurate mpMRI estimation. Special considerations should be taken for patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy.

MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions. METHODS: Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).

Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection and Investigation of Multiparametric MRI-derived Markers.

Background Data regarding the prospective performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 alone and in combination with quantitative MRI features for prostate cancer detection is limited. Purpose To assess lesion-based clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates in different PI-RADS version 2.1 categories and to identify MRI features that could improve csPCa detection. Materials and Methods This single-center prospective study included men with suspected or known prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/US-guided biopsy from April 2019 to December 2021. MRI scans were prospectively evaluated using PI-RADS version 2.1. Atypical transition zone (TZ) nodules were upgraded to category 3 if marked diffusion restriction was present. Lesions with an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of 2 or higher (range, 1-5) were considered csPCa. MRI features, including three-dimensional diameter, relative lesion volume (lesion volume divided by prostate volume), sphericity, and surface to volume ratio (SVR), were obtained from lesion contours delineated by the radiologist. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted at the lesion and participant levels to determine features associated with csPCa. Results In total, 454 men (median age, 67 years [IQR, 62-73 years]) with 838 lesions were included. The csPCa rates for lesions categorized as PI-RADS 1 (n = 3), 2 (n = 170), 3 (n = 197), 4 (n = 319), and 5 (n = 149) were 0%, 9%, 14%, 37%, and 77%, respectively. csPCa rates of PI-RADS 4 lesions were lower than PI-RADS 5 lesions (P < .001) but higher than PI-RADS 3 lesions (P < .001). Upgraded PI-RADS 3 TZ lesions were less likely to harbor csPCa compared with their nonupgraded counterparts (4% [one of 26] vs 20% [20 of 99], P = .02). Predictors of csPCa included relative lesion volume (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001), SVR (OR, 6.2; P = .02), and extraprostatic extension (EPE) scores of 2 (OR, 9.3; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 4.1; P = .02). Conclusion The rates of csPCa differed between consecutive PI-RADS categories of 3 and higher. MRI features, including lesion volume, shape, and EPE scores of 2 and 3, predicted csPCa. Upgrading of PI-RADS category 3 TZ lesions may result in unnecessary biopsies. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Goh in this issue.

Impact of Prostate Urethral Lift Device on Prostate Magnetic Resonance Image Quality.

PURPOSE: Prostatic urethral lift with UroLift is a minimally invasive approach to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy. This device causes artifacts on prostate magnetic resonance images. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of artifact on prostate magnetic resonance image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of patients with UroLift who subsequently had prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Two readers graded UroLift artifact on each pulse sequence using a 5-point scale (1-nondiagnostic; 5-no artifact). Prostate Imaging Quality scores were assigned for the whole data set. The volume of gland obscured by artifact was measured. Linear and logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of poor image quality. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included. Poor image quality occurs more in the transition zone than the peripheral zone (15% vs 3%), at base/mid regions vs the apex (13%, 9%, and 5%, respectively) and on diffusion-weighted images vs T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (27%, 0.3%, 0%, respectively; P < .001). Suboptimal image quality (ie, Prostate Imaging Quality score <2) was found in 16%-24% of exams. The percentage of gland obscured by the UroLift artifact was higher on diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences than T2-weighted (32%, 9%, and 6%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: UroLift artifact negatively affects prostate magnetic resonance image quality with greater impact in the mid-basal transition zone, obscuring a third of the gland on diffusion-weighted images. Patients considering this procedure should be counseled on the impact of this device on image quality and its potential implications for any image-guided prostate cancer workup.

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.

Deep Learning-Based T2-weighted MR Image Quality Assessment and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection Rates.

BACKGROUND: Image quality evaluation of prostate MRI is important for successful implementation of MRI into localized prostate cancer diagnosis. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of image quality on prostate cancer detection using an in-house previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: 615 consecutive patients (median age 67 [interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71] years) with elevated serum PSA (median PSA 6.6 [IQR: 4.6-9.8] ng/mL) prior to prostate biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T/T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo MRI, high b-value echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging, and gradient recalled echo dynamic contrast-enhanced. ASSESSMENTS: Scans were prospectively evaluated during clinical readout using PI-RADSv2.1 by one genitourinary radiologist with 17 years of experience. For each patient, T2-weighted images (T2WIs) were classified as high-quality or low-quality based on evaluation of both general distortions (eg, motion, distortion, noise, and aliasing) and perceptual distortions (eg, obscured delineation of prostatic capsule, prostatic zones, and excess rectal gas) by a previously developed in-house AI algorithm. Patients with PI-RADS category 1 underwent 12-core ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy while those with PI-RADS category 2-5 underwent combined systematic and targeted biopsies. Patient-level cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2) by each biopsy method and compared between high- and low-quality images in each PI-RADS category. STATISTICAL TESTS: Fisher's exact test. Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 385 (63%) T2WIs were classified as high-quality and 230 (37%) as low-quality by AI. Targeted biopsy with high-quality T2WIs resulted in significantly higher clinically significant CDR than low-quality images for PI-RADS category 4 lesions (52% [95% CI: 43-61] vs. 32% [95% CI: 22-42]). For combined biopsy, there was no significant difference in patient-level CDRs for PI-RADS 4 between high- and low-quality T2WIs (56% [95% CI: 47-64] vs. 44% [95% CI: 34-55]; P = 0.09). DATA CONCLUSION: Higher quality T2WIs were associated with better targeted biopsy clinically significant cancer detection performance for PI-RADS 4 lesions. Combined biopsy might be needed when T2WI is lower quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Imaging has traditionally played a minor role in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. However, recent controversies generated by the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening followed by random biopsy have encouraged the development of new imaging methods for prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as the imaging method best able to detect clinically significant prostate cancers and to guide biopsies. Here, the authors explain what mpMRI is and how it is used clinically, especially with regard to high-risk populations, and we discuss the impact of mpMRI on treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:326-336. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Comparison of MRI-Based Staging and Pathologic Staging for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND. Currently most clinical models for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP) incorporate staging information from RP specimens, creating a gap in preoperative risk assessment. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the utility of presurgical staging information from MRI and postsurgical staging information from RP pathology in predicting BCR in patients with PCa. METHODS. This retrospective study included 604 patients (median age, 60 years) with PCa who underwent prostate MRI before RP from June 2007 to December 2018. A single genitourinary radiologist assessed MRI examinations for extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) during clinical interpretations. The utility of EPE and SVI on MRI and RP pathology for BCR prediction was assessed through Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Established clinical BCR prediction models, including the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (UCSF-CAPRA) model and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) model, were evaluated in a subset of 374 patients with available Gleason grade groups from biopsy and RP pathology; two CAPRA-MRI models (CAPRA-S model with modifications to replace RP pathologic staging features with MRI staging features) were also assessed. RESULTS. Univariable predictors of BCR included EPE on MRI (HR = 3.6), SVI on MRI (HR = 4.4), EPE on RP pathology (HR = 5.0), and SVI on RP pathology (HR = 4.6) (all p < .001). Three-year BCR-free survival (RFS) rates for patients without versus with EPE were 84% versus 59% for MRI and 89% versus 58% for RP pathology, and 3-year RFS rates for patients without versus with SVI were 82% versus 50% for MRI and 83% versus 54% for RP histology (all p < .001). For patients with T3 disease on RP pathology, 3-year RFS rates were 67% and 41% for patients without and with T3 disease on MRI. AUCs of CAPRA models, including CAPRA-MRI models, ranged from 0.743 to 0.778. AUCs were not significantly different between CAPRA-S and CAPRA-MRI models (p > .05). RFS rates were significantly different between low- and intermediate-risk groups for only CAPRA-MRI models (80% vs 51% and 74% vs 44%; both p < .001). CONCLUSION. Presurgical MRI-based staging features perform comparably to postsurgical pathologic staging features for predicting BCR. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI staging can preoperatively identify patients at high BCR risk, helping to inform early clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00026884 and NCT02594202.

Why Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Miss Clinically Significant Cancer?

PURPOSE: Multiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: Over the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSTM) score was associated with having clinically significant cancer missed on MRI-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: While uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Biopsy in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The underlying premise of prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) is that cancers likely to metastasize will be recognized and eliminated before cancer-related disease can ensue. Our study was designed to determine the prostate cancer upgrading rate when biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRGBx) is used before entry and during AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort included 519 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who enrolled in prospective studies (NCT00949819 and NCT00102544) between February 2008 and February 2020. Subjects were preliminarily diagnosed with Gleason Grade Group (GG) 1 cancer; AS began when subsequent MRGBx confirmed GG1 or GG2. Participants underwent confirmatory MRGBx (targeted and systematic) followed by surveillance MRGBx approximately every 12 to 24 months. The primary outcome was tumor upgrading to ≥GG3. RESULTS: Upgrading to ≥GG3 was found in 92 men after a median followup of 4.8 years (IQR 3.1-6.5) after confirmatory MRGBx. Upgrade-free probability after 5 years was 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.88). Cancer detected in a magnetic resonance imaging lesion at confirmatory MRGBx increased risk of subsequent upgrading during AS (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-6.0), as did presence of GG2 (HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-8.2) In men who upgraded ≥GG3 during AS, upgrading was detected by targeted cores only in 27%, systematic cores only in 25% and both in 47%. In 63 men undergoing prostatectomy, upgrading from MRGBx was found in only 5 (8%). CONCLUSIONS: When AS begins and follows with MRGBx (targeted and systematic), upgrading rate (≥GG3) is greater when tumor is initially present within a magnetic resonance imaging lesion or when pathology is GG2 than when these features are absent.

The role of novel imaging in prostate cancer focal therapy: treatment and follow-up.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has fundamentally changed how intraprostatic lesions are visualized, serving as a highly sensitive means for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) via image-targeted biopsy. However, limitations associated with mpMRI have led to the development of new imaging technologies with the goal of better characterizing intraprostatic disease burden to more accurately guide treatment planning and surveillance for prostate cancer focal therapy. Herein, we review several novel imaging modalities with an emphasis on clinical data reported within the past two years. RECENT FINDINGS: 7T MRI, artificial intelligence applied to mpMRI, positron emission tomography combined with either computerized tomography or MRI, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and micro-ultrasound are novel imaging modalities with the potential to further improve intraprostatic lesion localization for applications in focal therapy for prostate cancer. Many of these technologies have demonstrated equivalent or favorable diagnostic accuracy compared to contemporary mpMRI for identifying csPCa and some have even shown improved capabilities to define lesion borders, to provide volumetric estimates of lesions, and to assess the adequacy of focal ablation of planned treatment zones. SUMMARY: Novel imaging modalities with capabilities to better characterize intraprostatic lesions have the potential to improve accuracy in treatment planning, real-time assessment of the ablation zone, and posttreatment surveillance; however, many of these technologies require further validation to determine their clinical utility.

Prognostic Features of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy Based on Multiparametric MRI and Immunohistochemistry Analysis of MRI-guided Biopsy Specimens.

Background Although prostate MRI is routinely used for the detection and staging of localized prostate cancer, imaging-based assessment and targeted molecular sampling for risk stratification are an active area of research. Purpose To evaluate features of preoperative MRI and MRI-guided biopsy immunohistochemistry (IHC) findings associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer after surgery. Materials and Methods In this retrospective case-control study, patients underwent multiparametric MRI before MRI-guided biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy between 2008 and 2016. Lesions were retrospectively scored with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) (version 2) by radiologists who were blinded to the clinical-pathologic results. The IHC staining, including stains for the ETS-related gene, phosphatase and tensin homolog, androgen receptor, prostate specific antigen, and p53, was performed with targeted biopsy specimens of the index lesion (highest suspicion at MRI and pathologic grade) and scored by pathologists who were blinded to clinical-pathologic outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate associations with recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results The median RFS was 31.7 months (range, 1-101 months) for 39 patients (median age, 62 years; age range, 47-76 years) without BCR and 14.6 months (range, 1-61 months) for 40 patients (median age, 59 years; age range, 47-73 years) with BCR. MRI features that showed a significant relationship with the RFS interval included an index lesion with a PI-RADS score of 5 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; 95% CI: 1.05, 4.21; P = .04); index lesion burden, defined as ratio of index lesion volume to prostate volume (HR, 1.55; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.1; P = .003); and suspicion of extraprostatic extension (EPE) (HR, 2.18; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.2; P = .02). Presurgical multivariable analysis indicated that suspicion of EPE at MRI (adjusted HR, 2.19; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.3; P = .02) and p53 stain intensity (adjusted HR, 2.22; 95% CI: 1.0, 4.7; P = .04) were significantly associated with RFS. Conclusion MRI features, including Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, index lesion burden, extraprostatic extension, and preoperative guided biopsy p53 immunohistochemistry stain intensity are associated with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer after surgery. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Costa in this issue.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted and Systematic Biopsy for Detection of Grade Progression in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance for patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancers is becoming a more utilized option in recent years. However, the use of magnetic resonance imaging and imaging-targeted biopsy for monitoring grade progression has been poorly studied in this population. We aim to define the utility of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in an active surveillance population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2007 and January 2020, patients with diagnosed prostate cancer who elected active surveillance were monitored with prostate magnetic resonance imaging, imaging-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy. Patients were eligible for surveillance if diagnosed with any volume Gleason grade 1 disease and select Gleason grade 2 disease. Grade progression (Gleason grade 1 to ≥2 disease and Gleason grade 2 to ≥3 disease) for each biopsy modality was measured at 2 years, 4 years and 6+ years. RESULTS: In total, 369 patients had both magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy and were surveilled for at least 1 year. At 2 years, systematic biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic+imaging-targeted) detected grade progression in 44 patients (15.9%), 73 patients (26.4%) and 90 patients (32.5%), respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy detected more cancer grade progression compared to systematic biopsy in both the low and intermediate risk populations (p <0.001). Of all 90 grade progressions at the 2-year time point 46 (51.1%) were found by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy alone and missed by systematic biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy detected significantly more grade progressions in our active surveillance cohort compared to systematic biopsy at 2 years. Our results provide compelling evidence that prostate magnetic resonance imaging and imaging-targeted biopsy should be included in contemporary active surveillance protocols.

The Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression in Active Surveillance Patients with Bilateral Disease Detected by Combined Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Fusion and Systematic Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate whether bilateral prostate cancer detected at active surveillance (AS) enrollment is associated with progression to Grade Group (GG) ≥2 and to compare the efficacy of combined targeted biopsy plus systematic biopsy (Cbx) vs systematic biopsy (Sbx) or targeted biopsy alone to detect bilateral disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients referred to our institution from 2007-2020 was queried. The study cohort included all AS patients with GG1 on confirmatory Cbx and followup of at least 1 year. Cox proportional hazard analysis identified baseline characteristics associated with progression to ≥GG2 at any point throughout followup. RESULTS: Of 579 patients referred, 103 patients had GG1 on Cbx and were included in the study; 49/103 (47.6%) patients progressed to ≥GG2, with 30/72 (41.7%) patients with unilateral disease progressing and 19/31 (61.3%) patients with bilateral disease progressing. Median time to progression was 68 months vs 52 months for unilateral and bilateral disease, respectively (p=0.006). Both prostate specific antigen density (HR 1.72, p=0.005) and presence of bilateral disease (HR 2.21, p=0.012) on confirmatory biopsy were associated with AS progression. At time of progression, GG and risk group were significantly higher in patients with bilateral versus unilateral disease. Cbx detected 16% more patients with bilateral disease than Sbx alone. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral disease and prostate specific antigen density at confirmatory Cbx conferred greater risk of earlier AS progression. Cbx was superior to Sbx for identifying bilateral disease. AS risk-stratification protocols may benefit from including presence of bilateral disease and should use Cbx to detect bilateral disease.

Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.

Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials.

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical "middle ground" in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.