The RECONCILE study protocol: Exploiting image-based risk stratification in early prostate cancer to discriminate progressors from non-progressors (RECONCILE).

INTRODUCTION: RECONCILE (ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04340245) will identify molecular and radiomic markers associated with clinical progression and radiological progression events in a cohort of localised, newly diagnosed Gleason 3 + 4 tumours. Molecular markers will be correlated against standard of care MRI-targeted histology and oncological outcomes. METHODS: RECONCILE is an ethics approved (20/LO/0366) single centre, prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study of recently diagnosed (within 12 months), organ-confined Gleason 3 + 4 cancers (MCCL ≤10mm) currently under active surveillance. 60 treatment-naïve participants with a concordant MRI lesion (Likert score 4 or 5) and PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml will be recruited. Blood, urine and targeted prostate tissue cores will be subject to next generation sequencing at baseline and one year in all participants. Semen will be collected from a specified sub-population. Baseline and interval MR images will be extracted from standard of care prostate MRI ahead of radiomic analysis. Data extracted from radiological and biological samples will be used to derive the association of molecular change and radiological progression, the primary outcome of the study. To compensate for spatial intratumoral heterogeneity and inherent sampling bias, a molecular index will be derived for each participant using the molecular profile of tumour tissue at both baseline (MolBL) and one year (MolFU). We will extract a ΔMolBL:MolFU score for each participant. Molecular progression will be defined as a MolBL:MolFU score >95% CI of the combined ΔMolBL scores. Radiological progression is defined as a PRECISE score of 4 or 5. The study is powered to detect an association with a statistical power of 80%. RESULTS: Recruitment began in July 2020 (n = 62). To date, 37 participants have donated tissue for analysis. CONCLUSION: We have designed and implemented a prospective, longitudinal study to evaluate the underlying molecular landscape of intermediate risk, MR-visible prostate tumours. Recruitment is ongoing.

Imaging findings in suspected penile fracture: alternative diagnoses and surgical correlation.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to compare the imaging and surgical findings in a cohort of patients with suspected penile fracture (PF). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all patients with suspected PF over an 11-year period at a tertiary referral andrology centre. All dedicated presurgical imaging with ultrasound (US) and MRI was analysed and correlated with intraoperative findings; alternative diagnoses were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-three patients were included. One hundred and four (54%) had alternative diagnoses to PF including dorsal vein rupture and haematoma. Ninety-nine (51%) underwent surgical exploration of which 89 (46%) had PF. US correctly confirmed the presence and marked the site of fracture in 92% of cases. MRI was primarily used as a problem-solving tool (13 cases) and demonstrated a more extensive injury than US (12 cases). The reported size of tunical defect on imaging was a median of 7 mm (IQR 4-10) significantly smaller than on exploration (median 20 mm, IQR 10-30; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: US has a high positive predictive value in the confirmation of PF. MRI improves the detection and characterizing the extent of injury. Imaging marking informs surgical incision but defect size is under appreciated on all imaging modalities. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Penile imaging has a high positive predictive value to not only confirm the diagnosis of PF but to stage the extent of injury and mark the skin, which impacts the surgical technique. Alternative diagnoses to fracture are common and imaging could prevent unnecessary surgical exploration.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) Scoring System to Detect Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was introduced in 2021 to standardize the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer following whole-gland treatment. The system scores image on a scale from 1 to 5 and has shown promising results in single-center studies. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of the PI-RR system in predicting the likelihood of local recurrence after whole-gland treatment. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy were followed. Relevant databases were searched up to December 2023. Primary studies met the eligibility criteria if they reported MRI diagnostic performance in prostate cancer recurrence using PI-RR. Diagnostic performance for MRI was assessed using two different cutoff points (≥3 or ≥4 for positivity according to the PI-RR system). A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity values. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Sixteen articles were identified for full-text reading, of which six were considered eligible, involving a total of 467 patients. Using a cutoff of PI-RR ≥3 (4 studies) for recurrent disease, the sensitivity was 77.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.9-84.1%) and the specificity was 80.2% (95% CI 58.2-92.2%). Using a cutoff of PI-RR ≥4 (4 studies), the sensitivity was 61.9% (95% CI 35.6-82.7%) and the specificity was 86.6% (95% CI 75.1-93.3%). Overall, the inter-rater agreement varied from fair to excellent. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: PI-RR is accurate in detecting local recurrence after whole-gland treatment for prostate cancer and shows fair-to-good to excellent inter-reader agreement. Overall, a PI-RR cutoff of ≥3 showed high sensitivity and specificity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies that reported on how good MRI scans using a scoring system called PI-RR were in detecting recurrence of prostate cancer. We found that this system shows good performance, with fair to excellent agreement between different radiologists.

Footprints in the scan: reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic tools in urology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an ever-growing focus on climate change and its impact on our society. With healthcare contributing a sizeable proportion of carbon emissions, the sector has a duty to address its environmental impact. We highlight the recent progress, current challenges, and future prospects for reducing the carbon footprint in diagnostic urology, specifically for imaging, without compromising patient care. RECENT FINDINGS: The review is separated into four key areas of recent research: the design of a green radiology department, considering both infrastructural as well as behavioural changes that promote sustainability; individual scanners, where we provide an update on recent technological advancements and changes in behaviour that may enhance sustainable use; responsible resource allocation, where it is important to derive the maximal benefit for patients through the smallest use of resources; the recent research regarding single versus reusable urologic endoscopes as a case example. SUMMARY: We offer an overview of the present sustainability landscape in diagnostic urology with the aim of encouraging additional research in areas where existing practices may be challenged. To protect the environment, attention is drawn to both more simple steps that can be taken as well as some more complex and expensive ones.

The importance and future of prostate MRI report templates: improving oncological care.

The radiologist's report is crucial for guiding care post-imaging, with ongoing advancements in report construction. Recent studies across various modalities and organ systems demonstrate enhanced clarity and communication through structured reports. This article will explain the benefits of disease-state specific reporting templates using prostate MRI as the model system. We identify key reporting components for prostate cancer detection and staging as well as imaging in active surveillance and following therapy. We discuss relevant reporting systems including PI-QUAL, PI-RADS, PRECISE, PI-RR and PI-FAB systems. Additionally, we examine optimal reporting structure including disruptive technologies such as graphical reporting and using artificial intelligence to improve report clarity and applicability.

Improving Prostate MR Image Quality in Practice-Initial Results From the ACR Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Variability in prostate MRI quality is an increasingly recognized problem that negatively affects patient care. This report aims to describe the results and key learnings of the first cohort of the ACR Learning Network Prostate MR Image Quality Improvement Collaborative. METHODS: Teams from five organizations in the United States were trained on a structured improvement method. After reaching a consensus on image quality and auditing their images using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) system, teams conducted a current state analysis to identify barriers to obtaining high-quality images. Through plan-do-study-act cycles involving frontline staff, each site designed and tested interventions targeting image quality key drivers. The percentage of examinations meeting quality criteria (ie, PI-QUAL score ≥4) was plotted on a run chart, and project progress was reviewed in weekly meetings. At the collaborative level, the goal was to increase the percentage of examinations with PI-QUAL ≥4 to at least 85%. RESULTS: Across 2,380 examinations audited, the mean weekly rates of prostate MR examinations meeting image quality criteria increased from 67% (range: 60%-74%) at baseline to 87% (range: 80%-97%) upon program completion. The most commonly employed interventions were MR protocol adjustments, development and implementation of patient preparation instructions, personnel training, and development of an auditing process mechanism. CONCLUSION: A learning network model, in which organizations share knowledge and work together toward a common goal, can improve prostate MR image quality at multiple sites simultaneously. The inaugural cohort's key learnings provide a road map for improvement on a broader scale.

ESR Essentials: using the right scoring system in prostate MRI-practice recommendations by ESUR.

MRI has gained prominence in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) being widely used for cancer detection. Beyond PI-RADS, other MRI-based scoring tools have emerged to address broader aspects within the PCa domain. However, the multitude of available MRI-based grading systems has led to inconsistencies in their application within clinical workflows. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) assesses the likelihood of clinically significant radiological changes of PCa during active surveillance, and the Prostate Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) scoring system evaluates the risk of local recurrence after whole-gland therapies with curative intent. Underlying any system is the requirement to assess image quality using the Prostate Imaging Quality Scoring System (PI-QUAL). This article offers practicing radiologists a comprehensive overview of currently available scoring systems with clinical evidence supporting their use for managing PCa patients to enhance consistency in interpretation and facilitate effective communication with referring clinicians. KEY POINTS: Assessing image quality is essential for all prostate MRI interpretations and the PI-QUAL score represents  the standardized tool for this purpose. Current urological clinical guidelines for prostate cancer diagnosis and localization recommend adhering to the PI-RADS recommendations. The PRECISE and PI-RR scoring systems can be used for assessing radiological changes of prostate cancer during active surveillance and the likelihood of local recurrence after radical treatments respectively.

PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI.

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI.

New Prostate MRI Scoring Systems (PI-QUAL, PRECISE, PI-RR, and PI-FAB): AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), interpreted using PI-RADS, improves the initial detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate MR image quality has increasingly recognized relevance to the use of mpMRI for PCa diagnosis. Additionally, mpMRI is increasingly used in scenarios beyond initial detection, including active surveillance and assessment for local recurrence after prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or focal therapy. Acknowledging these evolving demands, specialized prostate MRI scoring systems beyond PI-RADS have emerged, to address distinct scenarios and unmet needs. Examples include Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) for assessment of image quality of mpMRI, Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations for evaluation of serial mpMRI examinations during active surveillance, Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting System (PI-RR) for assessment for local recurrence after prostatectomy or radiation therapy, and Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) for assessment for local recurrence after focal therapy. These systems' development and early uptake signal a compelling shift towards prostate MRI standardization in different scenarios, and ongoing research will help refine their roles in practice. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review critically examines these new prostate MRI scoring systems (PI-QUAL, PRECISE, PI-RR, and PI-FAB), analyzing the available evidence, delineating current limitations, and proposing solutions for improvement.

PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. METHODS: A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring. Objective: To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%. Design setting and participants: PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables. Results and limitations: The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score (p = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score (p = 0.009), previous negative biopsy (p = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up. Conclusions: MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC. Patient summary: We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.

The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.