Artificial Intelligence Improves the Ability of Physicians to Identify Prostate Cancer Extent.

PURPOSE: Defining prostate cancer contours is a complex task, undermining the efficacy of interventions such as focal therapy. A multireader multicase study compared physicians' performance using artificial intelligence (AI) vs standard-of-care methods for tumor delineation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cases were interpreted by 7 urologists and 3 radiologists from 5 institutions with 2 to 23 years of experience. Each reader evaluated 50 prostatectomy cases retrospectively eligible for focal therapy. Each case included a T2-weighted MRI, contours of the prostate and region(s) of interest suspicious for cancer, and a biopsy report. First, readers defined cancer contours cognitively, manually delineating tumor boundaries to encapsulate all clinically significant disease. Then, after ≥ 4 weeks, readers contoured the same cases using AI software. Using tumor boundaries on whole-mount histopathology slides as ground truth, AI-assisted, cognitively-defined, and hemigland cancer contours were evaluated. Primary outcome measures were the accuracy and negative margin rate of cancer contours. All statistical analyses were performed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The balanced accuracy (mean of voxel-wise sensitivity and specificity) of AI-assisted cancer contours (84.7%) was superior to cognitively-defined (67.2%) and hemigland contours (75.9%; P < .0001). Cognitively-defined cancer contours systematically underestimated cancer extent, with a negative margin rate of 1.6% compared to 72.8% for AI-assisted cancer contours (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: AI-assisted cancer contours reduce underestimation of prostate cancer extent, significantly improving contouring accuracy and negative margin rate achieved by physicians. This technology can potentially improve outcomes, as accurate contouring informs patient management strategy and underpins the oncologic efficacy of treatment.

Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Freehand versus 3-Dimensional Template Mapping Biopsy Using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Device in Biopsy Naïve Men.

PURPOSE: Targeted prostate biopsy devices include a 3-dimensional digital template grid to guide systematic biopsy locations. Following a template could better ensure uniform and well distributed sampling of the prostate compared to the traditional freehand biopsy approach, possibly decreasing the chance of false-negative biopsy. Thus, we determined cancer detection rates obtained by conventional freehand systematic sampling vs template mapping sampling using a magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent first line conventional or image guided prostate biopsy were identified retrospectively in an institutional review board approved protocol. Excluded from study were men with prior biopsy or treatment or fewer than 10 cores taken. Targeted cores obtained by image guided biopsy were censored from analysis to simulate systematic template biopsy. The resulting cancer detection rate was compared to that of conventional biopsy. RESULTS: We identified 1,582 patients between 2006 and 2014 who met the criteria for analysis, including 1,052 who underwent conventional biopsy and 530 who underwent template biopsy with a magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion device. Patient age, prostate specific antigen and the number of systematic cores were the same in the 2 groups. Template biopsy detected any prostate cancer in 257 of 530 men (48.5%) and clinically significant cancer in 196 (37.0%) while conventional biopsy detected any cancer in 432 of 1,052 (41.0%) (p=0.005) and clinically significant cancer in 308 (29.2%) (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Template mapping systematic biopsy detected more prostate cancer than conventional sampling in biopsy naïve men. It is a promising cost-effective alternative to magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy as an upfront screening tool.

Using spatial tracking with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided biopsy to identify unilateral prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To create reliable predictive metrics of unilateral disease using spatial tracking from a fusion device, thereby improving patient selection for hemi-gland ablation of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients who received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-guided biopsy and radical prostatectomy at a single institution between 2011 and 2018. In addition to standard clinical features, we extracted quantitative features related to biopsy core and MRI target locations predictive of tumour unilaterality. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to create a decision tree (DT) for identifying cancer laterality. We evaluated concordance of model-determined laterality with final surgical pathology. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were identified with biopsy coordinates and surgical pathology available. Based on CART analysis, in addition to biopsy- and MRI-confirmed disease unilaterality, patients should be further screened for cancer detected within 7 mm of midline in a 40 mL prostate, which equates to the central third of any-sized prostate by radius. The area under the curve for this DT was 0.82. Standard diagnostics and the DT correctly identified disease laterality in 73% and 80% of patients, respectively (P = 0.13). Of the patients identified as unilateral by standard diagnostics, 47% had undetected contralateral disease or were otherwise incorrectly identified. This error rate was reduced to 17% (P = 0.01) with the DT. CONCLUSION: Using spatial tracking from fusion devices, a DT was more reliable for identifying laterality of prostate cancer compared to standard diagnostics. Patients with cancer detected within the central third of the prostate by radius are poor hemi-gland ablation candidates due to the risk of midline extension of tumour.

Do contemporary imaging and biopsy techniques reliably identify unilateral prostate cancer? Implications for hemiablation patient selection.

BACKGROUND: Hemiablation is a less morbid treatment alternative for appropriately selected patients with unilateral prostate cancer (PCa). However, to the authors' knowledge, traditional diagnostic techniques inadequately identify appropriate candidates. In the current study, the authors quantified the accuracy for identifying hemiablation candidates using contemporary diagnostic techniques, including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-fusion with complete systematic template biopsy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRI and MRI-fusion prostate biopsy, including full systematic template biopsy, prior to radical prostatectomy in a single tertiary academic institution between June 2010 and February 2018 was performed. Hemiablation candidates had unilateral intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason score [GS] of 3+4 or 4+3, clinical T classification ≤T2, and prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/dL) on MRI-fusion biopsy and 2) no contralateral highly or very highly suspicious Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) MRI lesions. Hemiablation candidates were inappropriately selected if pathologists identified contralateral GS ≥3+4 or high-risk ipsilateral PCa on prostatectomy. The authors tested a range of hemiablation inclusion criteria and performed multivariable analysis of preoperative predictors of undetected contralateral disease. RESULTS: Of 665 patients, 92 met primary hemiablation criteria. Of these 92 patients, 44 (48%) were incorrectly identified due to ipsilateral GS ≥3+4 tumors crossing the midline (21 patients), undetected distinct contralateral GS ≥3+4 tumors (20 patients), and/or ipsilateral high-risk PCa (3 patients) on prostatectomy. The rate of undetected contralateral disease ranged from 41% to 48% depending on inclusion criteria. On multivariable analysis, men with anterior index tumors were found to be 2.4 times more likely to harbor undetected contralateral GS ≥3+4 PCa compared with men with posterior lesions (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients must weigh the risk of inadequate oncologic treatment against the functional benefits of hemiablation. Further investigation into methods for improving patient selection for hemiablation is necessary.

A system using patient-specific 3D-printed molds to spatially align in vivo MRI with ex vivo MRI and whole-mount histopathology for prostate cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Patient-specific 3D-printed molds and ex vivo MRI of the resected prostate have been two important strategies to align MRI with whole-mount histopathology (WMHP) for prostate cancer (PCa) research, but the combination of these two strategies has not been systematically evaluated. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a system that combines patient-specific 3D-printed molds with ex vivo MRI (ExV) to spatially align in vivo MRI (InV), ExV, and WMHP in PCa patients. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort study. POPULATION: Seventeen PCa patients who underwent 3T MRI and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: T2 -weighted turbo spin-echo sequences at 3T. ASSESSMENT: Immediately after RALP, the fresh whole prostate specimens were imaged in patient-specific 3D-printed molds by 3T MRI and then sectioned to create WMHP slides. The time required for ExV was measured to assess impact on workflow. InV, ExV, and WMHP images were registered. Spatial alignment was evaluated using: slide offset (mm) between ExV slice locations and WMHP slides; overlap of the 3D prostate contour on InV versus ExV using Dice's coefficient (0 to 1); and 2D target registration error (TRE, mm) between corresponding landmarks on InV, ExV, and WMHP. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). STATISTICAL TESTING: Differences in 2D TRE before versus after registration were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < 0.05 considered significant). RESULTS: ExV (duration 115 ± 15 min) was successfully incorporated into the workflow for all cases. Absolute slide offset was 1.58 ± 1.57 mm. Dice's coefficient was 0.865 ± 0.035. 2D TRE was significantly reduced after registration (P < 0.01) with mean (±SD of per patient means) of 1.9 ± 0.6 mm for InV versus ExV, 1.4 ± 0.5 mm for WMHP versus ExV, and 2.0 ± 0.5 mm for WMHP versus InV. DATA CONCLUSION: The proposed system combines patient-specific 3D-printed molds with ExV to achieve spatial alignment between InV, ExV, and WMHP with mean 2D TRE of 1-2 mm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:270-279.

Focal Therapy Eligibility Determined by Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We assessed focal therapy eligibility in men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with correlation to whole mount histology after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were selected from among the 454 men in whom targeted biopsy proven prostate cancer was derived from regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging from 2010 to 2016. Focal therapy eligibility was limited to a maximum Gleason score of 4 + 3 in regions of interest with or without other foci of low risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 and less than 4 mm). Men who did not meet NCCN® intermediate risk criteria were classified as ineligible for focal therapy. Of the 454 men 64 underwent radical prostatectomy and biopsy findings were compared to final pathology findings. RESULTS: Of the 454 men with a biopsy proven region of interest 175 (38.5%) were eligible for focal therapy. Fusion biopsy, which combined targeted and template biopsy, had 80.0% sensitivity (12 of 15 cases), 73.5% specificity (36 of 49) and 75.0% accuracy (48 of 64) for focal therapy eligibility. Targeted cores alone yielded 73.3% sensitivity (11 of 15 cases), 47.9% specificity (23 of 48) and 54.7% accuracy (35 of 64). Gleason score and extension across the midline differed in 4 and 9, respectively, of the 13 cases that showed discordant biopsy and whole mount histology. CONCLUSIONS: Using intermediate risk eligibility criteria more than a third of men with a targeted biopsy proven lesion identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging would have been eligible for focal therapy. Eligibility determined by fusion biopsy was concordant with whole mount histology in 75% of cases. Improved selection criteria are needed to reliably determine focal therapy eligibility.

Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared the upgrading rate obtained by resampling precise spots of prostate cancer (tracking biopsy) vs conventional systematic resampling during followup of men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2009 to 2017 in 352 men prostate cancer was Gleason 3 + 3 in 268 and Gleason 3 + 4 in 84 at initial magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. These men subsequently underwent a second fusion biopsy. At the first biopsy session all men underwent 12-core systematic biopsies and, when magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were present, targeted biopsies. All cancerous sites were recorded electronically. During active surveillance at a second fusion biopsy session 6 to 18 months later tracking and systematic nontracking samples were obtained. The primary outcome measure was an increase in Gleason score (upgrading) at followup sampling, which was stratified by biopsy method. RESULTS: Overall 91 of the 352 men (25.9%) experienced upgrading at the second biopsy during a median 11-month interval. The upgrade rate in the Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 groups was 26.9% and 22.6%, respectively. The mean number of cores taken at second biopsy was 12.2 ± 3.3 in men with upgrading and 12.4 ± 4.1 in those who remained stable (p not significant). Men with grade 0 to 4 magnetic resonance imaging targets were all upgraded at approximately the same rate of 20% to 30% (p not significant). However, 58.8% of the men with grade 5 magnetic resonance imaging targets were upgraded. Of the 91 upgrades 48 (53%) were detected only by tracking. CONCLUSIONS: The tracking function of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy warrants further study. When specific sites are resampled in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer, upgrading is detected more often than by nontracking biopsy.

Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the rate of upgrading to Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater using targeted biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study subjects comprised all 259 men, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 63 with Gleason score 3 + 4, who were diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy from 2009 to 2015 and underwent subsequent fusion biopsy for as long as 4 years of active surveillance. The primary end point was the discovery of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater prostate cancer. Followup biopsies included targeting of positive sites, which were tracked in an Artemis™ device. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine upgrading rates, stratified by initial Gleason score and prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, men with Gleason score 3 + 4 were 4.65 times more likely to have upgrading than men with an initial Gleason score of 3 + 3 at 3 years (p <0.01). By the third surveillance year 63% of men with Gleason score 3 + 4 had been upgraded compared with 18.0% who started with Gleason score 3 + 3 (p <0.01). Of all 33 upgrades 32 (97%) occurred at a magnetic resonance imaging visible or a tracked site of tumor, rather than at a previously negative systematic site. Independent predictors of upgrading were Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and a grade 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. The incidence rate ratio of upgrading (Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 3 + 3) was 4.25 per year of patient followup (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: During active surveillance of prostate cancer, targeting of tracked tumor foci by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for heightened detection of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater cancers. Baseline variables directly related to important upgrading that warrant increased vigilance include Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and grade 5 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the size and shape of localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 114 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy with patient specific mold processing of the specimen from 2013 to 2015. T2-weighted images were used to contour the prostate capsule and cancer suspicious regions of interest. The contours were used to design and print 3-dimensional custom molds, which permitted alignment of excised prostates with magnetic resonance imaging scans. Tumors were reconstructed in 3 dimensions from digitized whole mount sections. Tumors were then matched with regions of interest and the relative geometries were compared. RESULTS: Of the 222 tumors evident on whole mount sections 118 had been identified on magnetic resonance imaging. For the 118 regions of interest mean volume was 0.8 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 17 mm. However, for matched pathological tumors, of which most were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater, mean volume was 2.5 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 28 mm. The median tumor had a 13.5 mm maximal extent beyond the magnetic resonance imaging contour and 80% of cancer volume from matched tumors was outside region of interest boundaries. Size estimation was most accurate in the axial plane and least accurate along the base-apex axis. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging consistently underestimates the size and extent of prostate tumors. Prostate cancer foci had an average diameter 11 mm longer and a volume 3 times greater than T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging segmentations. These results may have important implications for the assessment and treatment of prostate cancer.

Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Feasibility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion for Guidance.

PURPOSE: Focal laser ablation is a potential treatment in some men with prostate cancer. Currently focal laser ablation is performed by radiologists in a magnetic resonance imaging unit (in bore). We evaluated the safety and feasibility of performing focal laser ablation in a urology clinic (out of bore) using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion for guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11 men with intermediate risk prostate cancer were enrolled in this prospective, institutional review board approved pilot study. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion was used to guide laser fibers transrectally into regions of interest harboring intermediate risk prostate cancer. Thermal probes were inserted for real-time monitoring of intraprostatic temperatures during laser activation. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (3 Tesla) was done immediately after treatment and at 6 months along with comprehensive fusion biopsy. RESULTS: Ten of 11 patients were successfully treated while under local anesthesia. Mean procedure time was 95 minutes (range 71 to 105). Posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging revealed a confined zone of nonperfusion in all 10 men. Mean zone volume was 4.3 cc (range 2.1 to 6.0). No CTCAE grade 3 or greater adverse events developed and no changes were observed in urinary or sexual function. At 6 months magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy of the treatment site showed no cancer in 3 patients, microfocal Gleason 3 + 3 in another 3 and persistent intermediate risk prostate cancer in 4. CONCLUSIONS: Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer appears safe and feasible with the patient under local anesthesia in a urology clinic using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion for guidance and thermal probes for monitoring. Further development is necessary to refine out of bore focal laser ablation and additional studies are needed to determine appropriate treatment margins and oncologic efficacy.

Risk Stratification Among Men With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 Category 3 Transition Zone Lesions: Is Biopsy Always Necessary?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine the clinical and MRI characteristics of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCA) (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) in men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) category 3 transition zone (TZ) lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2014 to 2016, 865 men underwent prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy (FB). A subset of 90 FB-naïve men with 96 PI-RADSv2 category 3 TZ lesions was identified. Patients were imaged at 3 T using a body coil. Images were assigned a PI-RADSv2 category by an experienced radiologist. Using clinical data and imaging features, we performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify predictors of clinically significant PCA. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 66 years, and the mean prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was 0.13 ng/mL2. PCA was detected in 34 of 96 (35%) lesions, 14 of which (15%) harbored clinically significant PCA. In univariate analysis, DWI score, prostate volume, and PSAD were significant predictors (p < 0.05) of clinically significant PCA with a suggested significance for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and prostate-specific antigen value (p < 0.10). On multivariate analysis, PSAD and lesion ADC were the most important covariates. The combination of both PSAD of 0.15 ng/mL2 or greater and an ADC value of less than 1000 mm2/s yielded an AUC of 0.91 for clinically significant PCA (p < 0.001). If FB had been restricted to these criteria, only 10 of 90 men would have undergone biopsy, resulting in diagnosis of clinically significant PCA in 60% with eight men (9%) misdiagnosed (false-negative). CONCLUSION: The yield of FB in men with PI-RADSv2 category 3 TZ lesions for clinically significant PCA is 15% but significantly improves to 60% (AUC > 0.9) among men with PSAD of 0.15 ng/mL2 or greater and lesion ADC value of less than 1000 mm2/s.

Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR)-ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP). METHODS: A total of 1042 men underwent multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy consecutively in a prospective trial (2009-2014). An expert reader graded mpMRI regions of interest (ROIs) as 1 to 5 using published protocols. The fusion biopsy device was used to obtain targeted cores from ROIs (when present) followed by a fusion image-guided, 12-core systematic biopsy in all men, even if no suspicious ROI was noted. The primary endpoint of the study was the detection of csCaP (ie, Gleason score ≥ 7). RESULTS: Among 825 men with ≥ 1 suspicious ROI of ≥ grade 3, 289 (35%) were found to have csCaP. Powerful predictors of csCaP were ROI grade (grade 5 vs grade 3: odds ratio, 6.5 [P<.01]) and prostate-specific antigen density (each increase of 0.05 ng/mL/cc: odds ratio, 1.4 [P<.01]). Combining systematic and targeted biopsies resulted in the detection of more patients with csCaP (289 patients) than targeting (229 patients) or systematic (199 patients) biopsy alone. Among patients with no suspicious ROI, 35 (16%) were found to have csCaP on systematic biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective trial, MR-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the detection of csCaP, with a direct relationship noted with ROI grade and prostate-specific antigen density. The combination of targeted and systematic biopsy detected more csCaP than either modality alone; systematic biopsies revealed csCaP in 16% of men with no suspicious MRI target. The advantages of this new biopsy method are apparent, but issues of cost, training, and reliability await resolution before its widespread adoption.

Focal Laser Ablation of Prostate Cancer: Phase I Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Focal laser ablation is an investigational technique to treat prostate cancer in a region confined manner via coagulative necrosis. This phase I trial primarily examines the safety of transrectal magnetic resonance imaging guided (in-bore) focal laser ablation in men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. An exploratory end point is cancer control after 6 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an institutional review board approved trial we studied focal laser ablation in 8 men with intermediate risk prostate cancer diagnosed using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion. Focal laser ablation was performed by inserting a cylindrically diffusing, water cooled laser fiber into magnetic resonance visible regions of interest, followed by interstitial heating at 10 to 15 W for up to 3 minutes. Secondary safety monitors (thermal probes) were inserted to assess the accuracy of magnetic resonance thermometry. Comprehensive magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy was performed after 6 months. Adverse events and health related quality of life questionnaires were recorded. RESULTS: Focal laser ablation was successfully performed in all 8 subjects. No grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred and no changes in International Prostate Symptom Score or International Index of Erectile Function 5 were observed. Ablation zones, as measured by posttreatment magnetic resonance imaging, had a median volume of 3 cc or 7.7% of prostate volume. Prostate specific antigen decreased in 7 men (p <0.01). At followup magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy cancer was not detected in the ablation zone in 5 men but was present outside the treatment margin in 6 men. CONCLUSIONS: Focal laser ablation of the prostate is feasible and safe in men with intermediate risk prostate cancer without serious adverse events or changes in urinary or sexual function at 6 months. Comprehensive biopsy followup indicates that larger treatment margins than previously thought necessary may be required for complete tumor ablation.

Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Incremental Value.

PURPOSE: We assessed whether changes in serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can help predict the pathological progression of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 49 consecutive men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and again more than 6 months later, each followed by a targeted prostate biopsy, between January 2011 and May 2015. We evaluated whether progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (an increase in index lesion suspicion score, increase in index lesion volume or decrease in index lesion apparent diffusion coefficient) could predict pathological progression (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater on subsequent biopsy, in systematic or targeted cores). Diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was determined with and without clinical data using a binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: The mean interval between baseline and followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 28.3 months (range 11 to 43). Pathological progression occurred in 19 patients (39%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 37%, 90%, 69% and 70%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63. A logistic regression model using clinical information (maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm on baseline biopsy or a prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.15 ng/ml(2) at followup biopsy) had an AUC of 0.87 for predicting pathological progression. The addition of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data significantly improved the AUC to 0.91 (p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging adds incremental value to prostate specific antigen density and baseline cancer core length for predicting Gleason 6 upgrading in men on active surveillance.

Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?

PURPOSE: Established in 1994, the Epstein histological criteria (Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer cores positive and 50% or less of any core) have been widely used to select men for active surveillance. However, with the advent of targeted biopsy, which may be more accurate than conventional biopsy, we reevaluated the likelihood of reclassification upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 113 men enrolled in active surveillance at our institution who met Epstein criteria and subsequently underwent confirmatory targeted biopsy via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Median patient age was 64 years, median prostate specific antigen was 4.2 ng/ml and median prostate volume was 46.8 cc. Targets or regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion were graded by suspicion level and biopsied at 3 mm intervals along the longest axis (median 10.5 mm). Also, 12 systematic cores were obtained during confirmatory rebiopsy. Our reporting is consistent with START (Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies) criteria. RESULTS: Confirmatory fusion biopsy resulted in reclassification in 41 men (36%), including 26 (23%) due to Gleason grade 6 or greater and 15 (13%) due to high volume Gleason 6 disease. When stratified by suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, the likelihood of reclassification was 24% to 29% for target grade 0 to 3, 45% for grade 4 and 100% for grade 5 (p=0.001). Men with grade 4 and 5 vs lower grade targets were greater than 3 times more likely to be reclassified (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion men with high suspicion targets on imaging were reclassified 45% to 100% of the time. Criteria for active surveillance should be reevaluated when multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy is used.

Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology.

PURPOSE: We explored the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy on the prediction of final surgical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at UCLA after fusion biopsy were included in this prospective, institutional review board approved pilot study. Using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, tissue was obtained from a 12-point systematic grid (mapping biopsy) and from regions of interest detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (targeted biopsy). A single radiologist read all magnetic resonance imaging, and a single pathologist independently rereviewed all biopsy and whole mount pathology, blinded to prior interpretation and matched specimen. Gleason score concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy was the primary end point. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 62 years and median prostate specific antigen was 6.2 ng/ml. Final Gleason score at prostatectomy was 6 (13%), 7 (70%) and 8-9 (17%). A tertiary pattern was detected in 17 (31%) men. Of 45 high suspicion (image grade 4-5) magnetic resonance imaging targets 32 (71%) contained prostate cancer. The per core cancer detection rate was 20% by systematic mapping biopsy and 42% by targeted biopsy. The highest Gleason pattern at prostatectomy was detected by systematic mapping biopsy in 54%, targeted biopsy in 54% and a combination in 81% of cases. Overall 17% of cases were upgraded from fusion biopsy to final pathology and 1 (2%) was downgraded. The combination of targeted biopsy and systematic mapping biopsy was needed to obtain the best predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the prediction of final prostate pathology with greater accuracy than that reported previously using conventional methods (81% vs 40% to 65%). If confirmed, these results will have important clinical implications.

Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device.

PURPOSE: Targeted biopsy of lesions identified on magnetic resonance imaging may enhance the detection of clinically relevant prostate cancers. We evaluated prostate cancer detection rates in 171 consecutive men using magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects underwent targeted biopsy for active surveillance (106) or persistently increased prostate specific antigen but negative prior conventional biopsy (65). Before biopsy, each man underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla. Lesions on magnetic resonance imaging were outlined in 3 dimensions and assigned increasing cancer suspicion levels (image grade 1 to 5) by a uroradiologist. A biopsy tracking system was used to fuse the stored magnetic resonance imaging with real-time ultrasound, generating a 3-dimensional prostate model on the fly. Working from the 3-dimensional model, transrectal biopsy of target lesions and 12 systematic biopsies were performed with the patient under local anesthesia in the clinic. RESULTS: A total of 171 subjects (median age 65 years) underwent targeted biopsy. At biopsy, median prostate specific antigen was 4.9 ng/ml and prostate volume was 48 cc. A targeted biopsy was 3 times more likely to identify cancer than a systematic biopsy (21% vs 7%). Prostate cancer was found in 53% of men, 38% of whom had Gleason grade 7 or greater cancer. Of the men with Gleason 7 or greater cancer 38% had disease detected only on targeted biopsies. Targeted biopsy findings correlated with level of suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging. Of 16 men 15 (94%) with an image grade 5 target (highest suspicion) had prostate cancer, including 7 with Gleason 7 or greater cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate lesions identified on magnetic resonance imaging can be accurately targeted using magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion biopsy by a urologist in clinic. Biopsy findings correlate with level of suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging.

MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (CaP) may be detected on MRI. Fusion of MRI with ultrasound allows urologists to progress from blind, systematic biopsies to biopsies, which are mapped, targeted and tracked. We herein review the current status of prostate biopsy via MRI/ultrasound fusion. RECENT FINDINGS: Three methods of fusing MRI for targeted biopsy have been recently described: MRI-ultrasound fusion, MRI-MRI fusion ('in-bore' biopsy) and cognitive fusion. Supportive data are emerging for the fusion devices, two of which received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the past 5 years: Artemis (Eigen, USA) and Urostation (Koelis, France). Working with the Artemis device in more than 600 individuals, we found that targeted biopsies are two to three times more sensitive for detection of CaP than nontargeted systematic biopsies; nearly 40% of men with Gleason score of at least 7 CaP are diagnosed only by targeted biopsy; nearly 100% of men with highly suspicious MRI lesions are diagnosed with CaP; ability to return to a prior biopsy site is highly accurate (within 1.2 ±â€Š1.1 mm); and targeted and systematic biopsies are twice as accurate as systematic biopsies alone in predicting whole-organ disease. SUMMARY: In the future, MRI-ultrasound fusion for lesion targeting is likely to result in fewer and more accurate prostate biopsies than the present use of systematic biopsies with ultrasound guidance alone.

Prediction and Mapping of Intraprostatic Tumor Extent with Artificial Intelligence.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underestimation of prostate cancer extent complicates the definition of focal treatment margins. Objective: To validate focal treatment margins produced by an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Design setting and participants: Testing was conducted retrospectively in an independent dataset of 50 consecutive patients who had radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk cancer. An AI deep learning model incorporated multimodal imaging and biopsy data to produce three-dimensional cancer estimation maps and margins. AI margins were compared with conventional MRI regions of interest (ROIs), 10-mm margins around ROIs, and hemigland margins. The AI model also furnished predictions of negative surgical margin probability, which were assessed for accuracy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Comparing AI with conventional margins, sensitivity was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and negative margin rates using chi-square tests. Predicted versus observed negative margin probability was assessed using linear regression. Clinically significant prostate cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) delineated on whole-mount histopathology served as ground truth. Results and limitations: The mean sensitivity for cancer-bearing voxels was higher for AI margins (97%) than for conventional ROIs (37%, p < 0.001), 10-mm ROI margins (93%, p = 0.24), and hemigland margins (94%, p < 0.001). For index lesions, AI margins were more often negative (90%) than conventional ROIs (0%, p < 0.001), 10-mm ROI margins (82%, p = 0.24), and hemigland margins (66%, p = 0.004). Predicted and observed negative margin probabilities were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.98, median error = 4%). Limitations include a validation dataset derived from a single institution's prostatectomy population. Conclusions: The AI model was accurate and effective in an independent test set. This approach could improve and standardize treatment margin definition, potentially reducing cancer recurrence rates. Furthermore, an accurate assessment of negative margin probability could facilitate informed decision-making for patients and physicians. Patient summary: Artificial intelligence was used to predict the extent of tumors in surgically removed prostate specimens. It predicted tumor margins more accurately than conventional methods.