Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale. METHODS: In this international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5-10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4-6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of non-inferiority (considering a margin of 0·05) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if non-inferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341. FINDINGS: Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·87-0·94; p<0·0001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 0·86 (0·83-0·89), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 0·02. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6·8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57·7%, 95% CI 51·6-63·3), or 50·4% fewer false-positive results and 20·0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89·4%, 95% CI 85·3-92·9). In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non-inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (68·9% [95% CI 65·3-72·4] vs 69·0% [65·5-72·5]) at the same sensitivity (96·1%, 94·0-98·2) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (-0·04) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-0·05) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system. FUNDING: Health~Holland and EU Horizon 2020.

Multiparametric MRI and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is effective for detecting prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is a high rate of equivocal Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions and false-positive findings. Purpose To investigate whether fluorine 18 (18F) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) 1007 PET/CT after mpMRI can help detect localized clinically significant PCa (csPCa), particularly for equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions. Materials and Methods This prospective study included participants with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels referred for prostate mpMRI between September 2020 and February 2022. 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was performed within 30 days of mpMRI and before biopsy. PI-RADS category and level of suspicion (LOS) were assessed. PI-RADS 3 or higher lesions at mpMRI and/or LOS 3 or higher lesions at 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT underwent targeted biopsies. PI-RADS 2 or lower and LOS 2 or lower lesions were considered nonsuspicious and were monitored during a 1-year follow-up by means of PSA testing. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed, with histologic examination serving as the reference standard. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher was considered csPCa. Results Seventy-five participants (median age, 67 years [range, 52-77 years]) were assessed, with PI-RADS 1 or 2, PI-RADS 3, and PI-RADS 4 or 5 groups each including 25 participants. A total of 102 lesions were identified, of which 80 were PI-RADS 3 or higher and/or LOS 3 or higher and therefore underwent targeted biopsy. The per-participant sensitivity for the detection of csPCa was 95% and 91% for mpMRI and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, respectively, with respective specificities of 45% and 62%. 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was used to correctly differentiate 17 of 26 PI-RADS 3 lesions (65%), with a negative and positive predictive value of 93% and 27%, respectively, for ruling out or detecting csPCa. One additional significant and one insignificant PCa lesion (PI-RADS 1 or 2) were found at 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT that otherwise would have remained undetected. Two participants had ISUP 2 tumors without PSMA uptake that were missed at PET/CT. Conclusion 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed good sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of csPCa and ruled this out in 93% of participants with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04487847 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Turkbey in this issue.

The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify and assess patient and disease characteristics associated with an increased risk of disease progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. METHODS: We studied patients with low-risk (ISUP GG1) or favorable intermediate-risk (ISUP GG2) PCa. All patients had at least one repeat biopsy. Disease progression was the primary outcome of this study, based on pathological upgrading. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between covariates and disease progression. RESULTS: In total, 240 men were included, of whom 198 (82.5%) were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and 42 (17.5%) with favorable intermediate-risk PCa. Disease progression was observed in 42.9% (103/240) of men. Index lesion > 10 mm (HR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.74-4.68; p < 0.001), MRI (m)T-stage 2b/2c (HR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.16-5.50; p = 0.02), highest PI-RADS score of 5 (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.48-6.28; p = 0.002) and a higher PSA level (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11; p = 0.014) at baseline were associated with disease progression on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed no significant baseline predictors of disease progression. CONCLUSION: In AS patients with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PCa, diameter of index lesion, MRI (m)T-stage, height of the PI-RADS score and the PSA level at baseline are significant predictors of disease progression to first repeat biopsy.

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.

Incidence of significant prostate cancer after negative MRI and systematic biopsy in the FUTURE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the proportion of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) found during follow-up in patients with negative systematic biopsy (SB) followed by non-suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and persistent clinical suspicion of PCa compared to the general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study in a subgroup of patients from a multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with prior negative SB with a persistent elevated prostate-specific antigen and/or suspicious digital rectal examination undergoing mpMRI. All patients with negative SB and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≤2 on mpMRI entered biochemical follow-up. Follow-up data until December 2021 were collected by reviewing institutional hospital records and the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). The primary outcome was the observed number of csPCa (Gleason ≥3 + 4/International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) cases during follow-up compared to the expected number in the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR]). RESULTS: In total, 431 patients had non-suspicious mpMRI and entered biochemical follow-up. After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 41 (23-57) months, 38 patients were diagnosed with PCa, of whom 13 (3.0%) had csPCa. The SIR for csPCa was 4.3 (95% confidence interval 2.3-7.4; total excess of eight cases). A higher risk of a positive biopsy for (cs)PCa based on the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator and a suspicious repeat MRI (PI-RADS ≥3) were significant predictive factors for csPCa. CONCLUSION: After negative prior biopsy and non-suspicious mpMRI the risk of csPCa is low. However, compared to the general population, the risk of csPCa is increased despite the high negative predictive value of mpMRI. More research focusing on biochemical and image-guided risk-adapted diagnostic surveillance strategies is warranted.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Observer Agreement of the MRI Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting Assessment Score.

Background Prostate cancer local recurrence location and extent must be determined in an accurate and timely manner. Because of the lack of a standardized MRI approach after whole-gland treatment, a panel of international experts recently proposed the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) assessment score. Purpose To determine the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RR for detecting local recurrence in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radiation therapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP) and to evaluate the interreader variability of PI-RR scoring. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent multiparametric MRI between September 2016 and May 2021 for BCR after RT or RP. MRI scans were analyzed, and a PI-RR score was assigned independently by four radiologists. The reference standard was defined using histopathologic findings, follow-up imaging, or clinical response to treatment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated to assess PI-RR performance for each reader. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine interreader agreement. Results A total of 100 men were included: 48 patients after RT (median age, 76 years [IQR, 70-82 years]) and 52 patients after RP (median age, 70 years [IQR, 66-74 years]). After RT, with PI-RR of 3 or greater as a cutoff (assigned when recurrence is uncertain), diagnostic performance ranges were 71%-81% sensitivity, 74%-93% specificity, 71%-89% PPV, 79%-86% NPV, and 77%-88% accuracy across the four readers. After RP, with PI-RR of 3 or greater as a cutoff, performance ranges were 59%-83% sensitivity, 87%-100% specificity, 88%-100% PPV, 66%-80% NPV, and 75%-85% accuracy. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.87 across the four readers for both the RT and RP groups. Conclusion MRI scoring with the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting assessment provides structured, reproducible, and accurate evaluation of local recurrence after definitive therapy for prostate cancer. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Haider in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on May 11, 2022.

Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI-directed biopsy (TR-MRDB) and transperineal (TP)-MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed a two-centre cohort of consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) compliant pre-biopsy MRI in a single, high-volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR-MRDB in Centre 1 and TP-MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy-avoidance due to non-suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy-related complications between TR- and TP-MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI-RADS category. RESULTS: Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR- and TP-MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of -5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI -2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR-MRDB (0.50%) and TP-MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.87% to 1.1%). CONCLUSION: This high-volume, two-centre study shows pre-biopsy MRI as a decision tool is implementable in daily clinical practice. Compared to recent trials, a substantially higher biopsy avoidance rate was achieved without compromising GG ≥2/GG ≥3 detection and coinciding with lower over detection rates of GG 1 cancer. Prostate cancer detection and complication rates were comparable for TR- and TP-MRDB.

PI-QUAL v.1: the first step towards good-quality prostate MRI.

KEY POINTS: • It is mandatory to evaluate the image quality of a prostate MRI scan, and to mention this quality in the report. • PI-QUAL v1 is an essential starting tool to standardize the evaluation of the quality of prostate MR-images as objectively as possible. • PI-QUAL will step by step develop into a reliable quality assessment tool to ensure that the first step of the MRI pathway is as accurate as possible.

A multifaceted approach to quality in the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.

KEY POINTS: • Identify, assure, and measure major sources of variability affecting the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.• Develop strategies to control and minimize variations that impair pathway effectiveness including the performance of main players and team working.• Assure end-to-end quality of the diagnostic chain with robust multidisciplinary team working.

ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging.

Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence. • Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies. • Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review.

The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

Lutetium-177-PSMA-I&T as metastases directed therapy in oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is increasing evidence showing a beneficial outcome (e.g. progression free survival; PFS) after metastases-directed therapy (MDT) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or targeted surgery for oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC). However, many patients do not qualify for these treatments due to prior interventions or tumor location. Such oligometastatic patients could benefit from radioligand therapy (RLT) with 177Lu-PSMA; a novel tumor targeting therapy for end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Especially because RLT could be more effective in low volume disease, such as the oligometastatic status, due to high uptake of radioligands in smaller lesions. To test the hypothesis that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment in oHSPC to prolong PFS and postpone the need for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), we initiated a multicenter randomized clinical trial. This is globally, the first prospective study using 177Lu-PSMA-I&T in a randomized multicenter setting. METHODS & DESIGN: This study compares 177Lu-PSMA-I&T MDT to the current standard of care (SOC); deferred ADT. Fifty-eight patients with oHSPC (≤5 metastases on PSMA PET) and high PSMA uptake (SUVmax > 15, partial volume corrected) on 18F-PSMA PET after prior surgery and/or EBRT and a PSA doubling time of < 6 months, will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The patients randomized to the interventional arm will be eligible for two cycles of 7.4GBq 177Lu-PSMA-I&T at a 6-week interval. After both cycles, patients are monitored every 3 weeks (including adverse events, QoL- and xerostomia questionnaires and laboratory testing) at the outpatient clinic. Twenty-four weeks after cycle two an end of study evaluation is planned together with another 18F-PSMA PET and (whole body) MRI. Patients in the SOC arm are eligible to receive 177Lu-PSMA-I&T after meeting the primary study objective, which is the fraction of patients who show disease progression during the study follow up. A second primary objective is the time to disease progression. Disease progression is defined as a 100% increase in PSA from baseline or clinical progression. DISCUSSION: This is the first prospective randomized clinical study assessing the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T for patients with oHSPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04443062 .

ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.

High-quality evidence shows that MRI in biopsy-naive men can reduce the number of men who need prostate biopsy and can reduce the number of diagnoses of clinically insignificant cancers that are unlikely to cause harm. In men with prior negative biopsy results who remain under persistent suspicion, MRI improves the detection and localization of life-threatening prostate cancer with greater clinical utility than the current standard of care, systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy. Systematic analyses show that MRI-directed biopsy increases the effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnosis pathway. The incorporation of MRI-directed pathways into clinical care guidelines in prostate cancer detection has begun. The widespread adoption of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting has promoted these changes in practice. The PI-RADS MRI-directed biopsy pathway enables the delivery of key diagnostic benefits to men suspected of having cancer based on clinical suspicion. Herein, the PI-RADS Steering Committee discusses how the MRI pathway should be incorporated into routine clinical practice and the challenges in delivering the positive health impacts needed by men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and follow-up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of men avoiding biopsy because of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings in a prostate MRI expert centre, and to assess the number of clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) detected during follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 4259 consecutive men having mpMRI of the prostate between January 2012 and December 2017, with either a history of previous negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy or biopsy naïve. Patients underwent mpMRI in a referral centre. Lesions were classified according to Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) versions 1 and 2. Negative mpMRI was defined as an index lesion PI-RADS ≤2. Follow-up until 13 October 2018 was collected by searching the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Gleason score ≥3 + 4 was considered csPCa. Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariable logistic regression models were used in the cohort of patients with negative mpMRI and follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, in 53.6% (2281/4259) of patients had a lesion classified as PI-RADS ≤2. In 320 patients with PI-RADS 1 or 2, follow-up mpMRI was obtained after a median (interquartile range) of 57 (41-63) months. In those patients, csPCa diagnosis-free survival (DFS) was 99.6% after 3 years. Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed age as a predictor for csPCa during follow-up (P < 0.05). In biopsied patients, csPCa was detected in 15.8% (19/120), 43.2% (228/528) and 74.5% (483/648) with PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSION: More than half of patients having mpMRI of the prostate avoided biopsy. In those patients, csPCa DFS was 99.6% after 3 years.

USPIO-enhanced MRI of pelvic lymph nodes at 7-T: preliminary experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technical feasibility of high-resolution USPIO-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) at ultrahigh magnetic field strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics review board approved this study and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Three patients with rectal cancer and three selected patients with (recurrent) prostate cancer were examined at 7-T 24-36 h after intravenous ferumoxtran-10 administration; rectal cancer patients also received a 3-T MRI. Pelvic LN imaging was performed using the TIAMO technique in combination with water-selective multi-GRE imaging and lipid-selective GRE imaging with a spatial resolution of 0.66 × 0.66 × 0.66mm3. T2*-weighted images of the water-selective imaging were computed from the multi-GRE images at TE = 0, 8, and 14 ms and used for the assessment of USPIO uptake. RESULTS: High-resolution 7-T MR gradient-echo imaging was obtained robustly in all patients without suffering from RF-related signal voids. USPIO signal decay in LNs was visualized using computed TE imaging at TE = 8 ms and an R2* map derived from water-selective imaging. Anatomically, LNs were identified on a combined reading of computed TE = 0 ms images from water-selective scans and images from lipid-selective scans. A range of 3-48 LNs without USPIO signal decay was found per patient. These LNs showed high signal intensity on computed TE = 8 and 14 ms imaging and low R2* (corresponding to high T2*) values on the R2* map. CONCLUSION: USPIO-enhanced MRI of the pelvis at 7-T is technically feasible and offers opportunities for detecting USPIO uptake in normal-sized LNs, due to its high intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution. KEY POINTS: • USPIO-enhanced MRI at 7-T can indicate USPIO uptake in lymph nodes based on computed TE images. • Our method promises a high spatial resolution for pelvic lymph node imaging.

Fast 3-T MR-guided transrectal prostate biopsy using an in-room tablet device for needle guide alignment: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of adding a tablet device inside the scanner room to assist needle-guide alignment during magnetic resonance (MR)-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. METHODS: Twenty patients with one cancer-suspicious region (CSR) with PI-RADS score ≥ 4 on diagnostic multiparametric MRI were prospectively enrolled. Two orthogonal scan planes of an MR fluoroscopy sequence (~3 images/s) were aligned to the CSR and needle-guide pivoting point. Targeting was achieved by manipulating the needle-guide under MR fluoroscopy feedback on the in-room tablet device. Technical feasibility and targeting success were assessed. Complications and biopsy procedure times were also recorded. RESULTS: Needle-guide alignment with the in-room tablet device was technically successful in all patients and allowed sampling after a single alignment step in 19/20 (95%) CSRs (median size 14 mm, range: 4-45). Biopsy cores contained cancer in 18/20 patients. There were no per-procedural or post-biopsy complications. Using the tablet device, the mean time to first biopsy was 5.8 ± 1.0 min and the mean total procedure time was 23.7 ± 4.1 min. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an in-room tablet device to assist needle-guide alignment was feasible and safe during MR-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Initial experience indicates potential for procedure time reduction. KEY POINTS: • Performing MR-guided prostate biopsy using an in-room tablet device is feasible. • CSRs could be sampled after a single alignment step in 19/20 patients. • The mean procedure time for biopsy with the tablet device was 23.7 min.

Evaluation of Dispersion MRI for Improved Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare dispersion MRI and Tofts model (TM) for analysis of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI (DCE-MRI) for localization of prostate cancer and to assess the correlation between quantitative DCE-MRI parameters and tumor grade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 80 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent DCE-MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. DCE-MRI parameters were extracted from dispersion MRI analysis (the dispersion parameter [kd], the flux rate [kep], and the intravascular mean transit time) and TM analysis (the forward volume transfer constant [Ktrans], kep, and the extravascular extracellular volume fraction [ve]). ROIs representing benign and malignant tissue were drawn on each DCE-MRI slice according to the histopathologic findings, and the diagnostic performance of the estimated parameters for the diagnosis of prostate cancer was evaluated using fivefold cross-validation and ROC curve analysis. Further analysis was conducted for the two most relevant parameters (i.e., kd [for dispersion MRI] and kep [for TM]), to investigate the correlation between DCE-MRI parameters and tumor grade. RESULTS: DCE-MRI parameters were significantly different between benign and malignant prostate tissue (p < 0.0001). The dispersion MRI parameter kd outperformed all other DCE-MRI parameters for prostate cancer diagnosis, showing the highest area under the ROC curve value (p < 0.0001). Only a weak linear correlation (Pearson r = 0.18; p < 0.05) was found between the dispersion parameter and the Gleason grade group. CONCLUSION: Dispersion MRI outperformed TM analysis, improving the diagnostic performance of quantitative DCE-MRI for prostate cancer localization. Of the DCE-MRI parameters, kd (for dispersion MRI) and kep (for TM) provided only poor characterization of tumor grade.