Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial.

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI.

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Management of small testicular masses: outcomes from a single-centre specialist multidisciplinary team.

OBJECTIVES: To report the management outcomes of men with ≤20-mm small testicular masses (STMs) and to identify clinical and histopathological factors associated with malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men managed at a single centre between January 2010 and December 2020 with a STM ≤20 mm in size was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 307 men with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 36 (30-44) years were included. Of these, 161 (52.4%), 82 (26.7%), 62 (20.2%) and 2 men (0.7%) underwent surveillance with interval ultrasonography (USS), primary excisional testicular biopsy (TBx) or primary radical orchidectomy (RO), or were discharged, respectively. The median (IQR) surveillance duration was 6 (3-18) months. The majority of men who underwent surveillance had lesions <5 mm (59.0%) and no lesion vascularity (67.1%) on USS. Thirty-three (20.5%) men undergoing surveillance had a TBx based on changes on interval USS or patient choice; seven (21.2%) were found to be malignant. The overall rate of malignancy in the surveillance cohort was 4.3%. The majority of men who underwent primary RO had lesions ≥10 mm (85.5%) and the presence of vascularity (61.7%) on USS. Nineteen men (23.2%) who underwent primary TBx (median lesion size 6 mm) had a malignancy confirmed on biopsy and underwent RO. A total of 88 men (28.7%) underwent RO, and malignancy was confirmed in 73 (83.0%) of them. The overall malignancy rate in the whole STM cohort was 23.8%. Malignant RO specimens had significantly larger lesion sizes (median [IQR] 11 [8-15] mm, vs benign: median [IQR] 8 [5-10] mm; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Small testicular masses can be stratified and managed based on lesion size and USS features. The overall malignancy rate in men with an STM was 23.8% (4.3% in the surveillance group). Surveillance should be considered in lesions <10 mm in size, with a TBx or frozen-section examination offered prior to RO in order to preserve testicular function.

Promoting the use of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is a new metric to evaluate the diagnostic quality of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate. This study assesses the impact of an intervention, namely a prostate MRI quality training lecture, on the participant's ability to apply PI-QUAL. METHODS: Sixteen participants (radiologists, urologists, physicists, and computer scientists) of varying experience in reviewing diagnostic prostate MRI all assessed the image quality of ten examinations from different vendors and machines. Then, they attended a dedicated lecture followed by a hands-on workshop on MRI quality assessment using the PI-QUAL score. Five scans assessed by the participants were evaluated in the workshop using the PI-QUAL score for teaching purposes. After the course, the same participants evaluated the image quality of a new set of ten scans applying the PI-QUAL score. Results were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The reference standard was the PI-QUAL score assessed by one of the developers of PI-QUAL. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in average area under the curve for the evaluation of image quality from baseline (0.59 [95 % confidence intervals: 0.50-0.66]) to post-teaching (0.96 [0.92-0.98]), an improvement of 0.37 [0.21-0.41] (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A teaching course (dedicated lecture + hands-on workshop) on PI-QUAL significantly improved the application of this scoring system to assess the quality of prostate MRI examinations. KEY POINTS: • A significant improvement in the application of PI-QUAL for the assessment of prostate MR image quality was observed after an educational intervention. • Appropriate training on image quality can be delivered to those involved in the acquisition and interpretation of prostate MRI. • Further investigation will be needed to understand the impact on improving the acquisition of high-quality diagnostic prostate MR examinations.

Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. METHODS: We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement. RESULTS: The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%). CONCLUSION: We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted. KEY POINTS: • Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 - 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4-5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 - 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Conspicuity of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A cross-disciplinary translational hypothesis.

Pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has transformed the risk stratification and diagnostic approach for suspected prostate cancer. The majority of clinically significant prostate cancers are visible on pre-biopsy mpMRI, however, there are a subset of significant tumors that are not detected by mpMRI. The radiobiological mechanisms underpinning mpMRI-visibility and invisibility of these cancers remain uncertain. Emerging evidence suggests that mpMRI-visible tumors are enriched with molecular features associated with increased disease aggressivity and poor clinical prognosis, which is supported by short-term endpoints, such as biochemical recurrence following surgery. Furthermore, at the histopathological level, mpMRI-visible tumors appear to exhibit increased architectural and vascular density compared to mpMRI-invisible disease. It seems probable that the genomic, pathological, radiological, and clinical features of mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancers are interrelated. Here, we propose a novel cross-disciplinary theory that links genomic and molecular evidence with cellular and histopathological appearances, elucidating both the mpMRI visibility and clinical status of significant prostate cancer.

Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. METHODS: A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. RESULTS: Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53-98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. CONCLUSIONS: Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations.

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy to Transperineal Template Mapping Biopsies Stratified by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score in the PROMIS Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic and transperineal template mapping biopsies with a 5 mm sampling frame stratified by the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert score in the PROMIS (Prostate MR Imaging Study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men due to undergo prostate biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and transperineal template mapping and transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies, which were performed and reported while blinded to other test results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was primarily defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 6 mm or more of any grade. It was secondarily defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 4 mm or more of any grade. RESULTS: In 41 months 740 men were recruited at a total of 11 centers, of whom 576 underwent all 3 tests. Eight of the 150 men (5.1%) with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 1-2 had any Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy. Of the 75 men in whom transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy showed Gleason 3 + 3 of any maximum cancer core length 61 (81%) had Gleason 3 + 4, 8 (11%) had Gleason 4 + 3 and 0 (0%) had Gleason 4 + 5 or greater disease. For definition 1 (clinically significant prostate cancer) transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy sensitivity remained stable and low across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores of 35% to 52%. For definition 2 (clinically significant prostate cancer and any cancer) sensitivity increased with higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. The negative predictive value varied due to varying disease prevalence but for all cancer thresholds it declined with increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores 1-2 transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy revealed Gleason 3 + 4 disease in only 1 of 20 men. Further, for any clinically significant prostate cancer definition transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy had poor sensitivity and variable but a low negative predictive value across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. Men who undergo transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy without targeting in the setting of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 3 to 5 should be advised to undergo repeat (targeted) biopsy.

Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria for magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) at two different academic centres. METHODS: The PRECISE criteria score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. The system is a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 or 2 implies regression of a previously visible lesion, 3 denotes stability and 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients (40 from each centre) on AS with a biopsy-confirmed low- or intermediate-risk PCa (i.e. ≤ Gleason 3 + 4 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 20 ng/ml) and ≥ 2 prostate MR scans was performed. Two blinded radiologists reported all scans independently and scored the likelihood of radiological change (PRECISE score) from the second scan onwards. Cohen's κ coefficients and percent agreement were computed. RESULTS: Agreement was substantial both at a per-patient and a per-scan level (κ = 0.71 and 0.61; percent agreement = 79% and 81%, respectively) for each PRECISE score. The agreement was superior (κ = 0.83 and 0.67; percent agreement = 90% and 91%, respectively) when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at University College London (UCL) (κ = 0.81 vs 0.55 on a per-patient level and κ = 0.70 vs 0.48 on a per-scan level, respectively). The discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement (80% vs 78% and 86% vs 75%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Expert radiologists achieved substantial reproducibility for the PRECISE scoring system, especially when data were pooled together according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). KEY POINTS: • Inter-reader agreement between two experienced prostate radiologists using the PRECISE criteria was substantial. • The agreement was higher when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (i.e. PRECISE 1-3 vs PRECISE 4 and 5). • Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at UCL, but the discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement.

Model-based reconstruction framework for correction of signal pile-up and geometric distortions in prostate diffusion MRI.

PURPOSE: Prostate diffusion-weighted MRI scans can suffer from geometric distortions, signal pileup, and signal dropout attributed to differences in tissue susceptibility values at the interface between the prostate and rectal air. The aim of this work is to present and validate a novel model based reconstruction method that can correct for these distortions. METHODS: In regions of severe signal pileup, standard techniques for distortion correction have difficulty recovering the underlying true signal. Furthermore, because of drifts and inaccuracies in the determination of center frequency, echo planar imaging (EPI) scans can be shifted in the phase-encoding direction. In this work, using a B0 field map and a set of EPI data acquired with blip-up and blip-down phase encoding gradients, we model the distortion correction problem linking the distortion-free image to the acquired raw corrupted k-space data and solve it in a manner analogous to the sensitivity encoding method. Both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the proposed method is performed in vivo in 10 patients. RESULTS: Without distortion correction, mean Dice similarity scores between a reference T2W and the uncorrected EPI images were 0.64 and 0.60 for b-values of 0 and 500 s/mm2 , respectively. Compared to the Topup (distortion correction method commonly used for neuro imaging), the proposed method achieved Dice scores (0.87 and 0.85 versus 0.82 and 0.80) and better qualitative results in patients where signal pileup was present because of high rectal gas residue. CONCLUSION: Model-based reconstruction can be used for distortion correction in prostate diffusion MRI.

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Men with high serum prostate specific antigen usually undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy). TRUS-biopsy can cause side-effects including bleeding, pain, and infection. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We did this multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study to test diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI and TRUS-biopsy against a reference test (template prostate mapping biopsy [TPM-biopsy]). Men with prostate-specific antigen concentrations up to 15 ng/mL, with no previous biopsy, underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6 mm or longer. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01292291. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2012, and November 9, 2015, we enrolled 740 men, 576 of whom underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. On TPM-biopsy, 408 (71%) of 576 men had cancer with 230 (40%) of 576 patients clinically significant. For clinically significant cancer, MP-MRI was more sensitive (93%, 95% CI 88-96%) than TRUS-biopsy (48%, 42-55%; p<0·0001) and less specific (41%, 36-46% for MP-MRI vs 96%, 94-98% for TRUS-biopsy; p<0·0001). 44 (5·9%) of 740 patients reported serious adverse events, including 8 cases of sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Using MP-MRI to triage men might allow 27% of patients avoid a primary biopsy and diagnosis of 5% fewer clinically insignificant cancers. If subsequent TRUS-biopsies were directed by MP-MRI findings, up to 18% more cases of clinically significant cancer might be detected compared with the standard pathway of TRUS-biopsy for all. MP-MRI, used as a triage test before first prostate biopsy, could reduce unnecessary biopsies by a quarter. MP-MRI can also reduce over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and improve detection of clinically significant cancer. FUNDING: PROMIS is funded by the UK Government Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment Programme, (Project number 09/22/67). This project is also supported and partly funded by UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre and The Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and is coordinated by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at UCL. It is sponsored by University College London (UCL).

Prostate cancer detection using quantitative T2 and T2 -weighted imaging: The effects of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors in men on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: T2 -weighted imaging (T2 -WI) information has been used in a qualitative manner in the assessment of prostate cancer. Quantitative derivatives (T2 relaxation time) can be generated from T2 -WI. These outputs may be useful in helping to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer from background signal. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate changes in quantitative T2 parameters in lesions and noncancerous tissue of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo daily for 6 months. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION/SUBJECTS: Forty men randomized to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 20) or placebo (n = 20). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Multiparametric 3T MRI at baseline and 6 months. This included a multiecho MR sequence for quantification of the T2 relaxation times, in three regions of interest (index lesion, noncancerous peripheral [PZ] and transitional [TZ] zones). A synthetic signal contrast (T2 Q contrast) between lesion and noncancerous tissue was assessed using quantitative T2 values. Signal contrast was calculated using the T2 -weighted sequence (T2 W contrast). ASSESSMENT: Two radiologists reviewed the scans in consensus according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v. 2) guidelines. STATISTICAL TESTS: Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U-tests, Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: When compared to noncancerous tissue, shorter T2 values were observed within lesions at baseline (83.5 and 80.5 msec) and 6 months (81.5 and 81.9 msec) in the placebo and dutasteride arm, respectively. No significant differences for T2 W contrast at baseline and after 6 months were observed, both in the placebo (0.40 [0.29-0.49] vs. 0.43 [0.25-0.49]; P = 0.881) and dutasteride arm (0.35 [0.24-0.47] vs. 0.37 [0.22-0.44]; P = 0.668). There was a significant, positive correlation between the T2 Q contrast and the T2 W contrast values (r = 0.786; P < 0.001). DATA CONCLUSION: The exposure to antiandrogen therapy did not significantly influence the T2 contrast or the T2 relaxation values in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1646-1653.

The Effect of Dutasteride on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Defined Prostate Cancer: MAPPED-A Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Dutasteride, which is licensed for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, has been associated with a lower progression rate of low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of dutasteride on prostate cancer volume as assessed by T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial, men with biopsy proven, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (up to Gleason 3 + 4 and PSA up to 15 ng/ml) who had visible lesion of 0.2 ml or greater on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences were randomized to daily dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo for 6 months. Lesion volume was assessed at baseline, and 3 and 6 months with image guided biopsy to the lesion at study exit. The primary end point was the percent reduction in lesion volume over 6 months. This trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials register (EudraCT 2009-102405-18). RESULTS: A total of 42 men were recruited between June 2010 and January 2012. In the dutasteride group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.55 and 0.38 ml, respectively and the average reduction was 36%. In the placebo group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.65 and 0.76 ml, respectively, and the average reduction was -12%. The difference in percent reductions between the groups was 48% (95% CI 27.4-68.3, p <0.0001). The most common adverse event was deterioration in erectile function, which was 25% in men randomized to dutasteride and 16% in men randomized to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Dutasteride was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer volume on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to placebo.

MRI findings in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: does dutasteride make MRI visible lesions less conspicuous? Results from a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo. METHODS: We analysed 37 men, randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 18) or placebo (n = 19), undergoing 3T multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) scans at baseline and 6 months. Images were reviewed blind to treatment allocation and clinical information. Mean ADC of peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones, and MR-suspicious lesions were compared between groups over 6 months. Conspicuity was defined as the PZ divided by tumour ADC, and its change over 6 months was assessed. RESULTS: A decrease in mean conspicuity in the dutasteride group (but not the controls) was seen over 6 months (1.54 vs 1.38; p = 0.025). Absolute changes in ADC and conspicuity were significantly different between placebo and dutasteride groups at 6 months: (-0.03 vs 0.08, p = 0.033) and (0.11 vs -0.16, p = 0.012), as were percentage changes in the same parameters: (-2.27% vs 8.56% p = 0.048) and (9.25% vs -9.89% p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Dutasteride was associated with increased tumour ADC and reduced conspicuity. A lower threshold for triggering biopsy might be considered in men on dutasteride undergoing mpMRI for prostate cancer. KEY POINTS: • Dutasteride increases ADC and reduces conspicuity in small mpMRI-visible prostate cancers. • Knowledge of dutasteride exposure is important in the interpretation of prostate mpMRI. • A lower threshold for triggering biopsy may be appropriate on dutasteride.

"Textural analysis of multiparametric MRI detects transition zone prostate cancer".

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate multiparametric-MRI (mpMRI) derived histogram textural-analysis parameters for detection of transition zone (TZ) prostatic tumour. METHODS: Sixty-seven consecutive men with suspected prostate cancer underwent 1.5T mpMRI prior to template-mapping-biopsy (TPM). Twenty-six men had 'significant' TZ tumour. Two radiologists in consensus matched TPM to the single axial slice best depicting tumour, or largest TZ diameter for those with benign histology, to define single-slice whole TZ-regions-of-interest (ROIs). Textural-parameter differences between single-slice whole TZ-ROI containing significant tumour versus benign/insignificant tumour were analysed using Mann Whitney U test. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC-AUC) analysis cross-validated with leave-one-out (LOO) analysis. RESULTS: ADC kurtosis was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in TZ containing significant tumour with ROC-AUC 0.80 (LOO-AUC 0.78); the difference became non-significant following exclusion of significant tumour from single-slice whole TZ-ROI (p = 0.23). T1-entropy was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in TZ containing significant tumour with ROC-AUC 0.70 (LOO-AUC 0.66) and was unaffected by excluding significant tumour from TZ-ROI (p = 0.004). Combining these parameters yielded ROC-AUC 0.86 (LOO-AUC 0.83). CONCLUSION: Textural features of the whole prostate TZ can discriminate significant prostatic cancer through reduced kurtosis of the ADC-histogram where significant tumour is included in TZ-ROI and reduced T1 entropy independent of tumour inclusion. KEY POINTS: • MR textural features of prostate transition zone may discriminate significant prostatic cancer. • Transition zone (TZ) containing significant tumour demonstrates a less peaked ADC histogram. • TZ containing significant tumour reveals higher post-contrast T1-weighted homogeneity. • The utility of MR texture analysis in prostate cancer merits further investigation.

18F-FECH PET/CT to Assess Clinically Significant Disease in Prostate Cancer: Correlation With Maximum and Total Cancer Core Length Obtained via MRI-Guided Template Mapping Biopsies.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to detect clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer on 18F-fluoroethylcholine (FECH) PET/CT and to correlate findings with transperineal template-guided prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-six lobes of the prostate were analyzed in 28 men who underwent FECH PET/CT and TPM. Whole-body images and pelvic images were acquired at 60 and 90 minutes after tracer administration. FECH PET/CT findings were correlated with TPM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and AUC of dual phase FECH PET/CT were calculated. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 68.8 years (range, 53-79 years), and mean prostate-specific antigen level was 12.1 ng/mL (range, 0.6-45 ng/mL). Mean maximum cancer core length was 4.4 mm (median, 4 mm; range, 1-14 mm) and mean total cancer core length, 14.6 mm (median, 14.6 mm; range, 1-82 mm). Prostate cancer was identified in 38 lobes with a Gleason score of 6 in five lobes (13%), 7 in 27 lobes (71%), 8 in four lobes (11%), and 9 in two lobes (5%). FECH PET/CT showed findings of prostate cancer in 46/56 lobes (82%). The ranges for maximum standardized uptake value for 60- and 90-minute FECH PET/CT were 1.3-11.4 and 1.2-10.9, respectively. Clinically significant cancer was seen in 30 of 38 positive lobes; eight had clinically insignificant disease. For 60-minute imaging, the sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC were 75%, 75%, and 0.746 (95% CI, 0.612-0.853). For 90-minute imaging, the sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC were 73.7%, 58.3%, and 0.646 (95% CI, 0.498-0.776). Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 95%, 50%, 82.6%, and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FECH PET/CT can detect prostate cancer and localizes TPM biopsy-proven clinically significant prostate cancer with sensitivity of greater than 89.7%. Of the two imaging durations, 60-minute imaging is more sensitive and specific than 90-minute imaging.