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.

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.

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.

Global Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality of the Prostate.

Background High variability in prostate MRI quality might reduce accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Purpose To prospectively evaluate the quality of MRI scanners taking part in the quality control phase of the global PRIME (Prostate Imaging Using MRI ± Contrast Enhancement) trial using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) standardized scoring system, give recommendations on how to improve the MRI protocols, and establish whether MRI quality could be improved by these recommendations. Materials and Methods In the prospective clinical trial (PRIME), for each scanner, centers performing prostate MRI submitted five consecutive studies and the MRI protocols (phase I). Submitted data were evaluated in consensus by two expert genitourinary radiologists using the PI-QUAL scoring system that evaluates MRI diagnostic quality using five points (1 and 2 = nondiagnostic; 3 = sufficient; 4 = adequate, 5 = optimal) between September 2021 and August 2022. Feedback was provided for scanners not achieving a PI-QUAL 5 score, and centers were invited to resubmit new imaging data using the modified protocol (phase II). Descriptive comparison of outcomes was made between the MRI scanners, feedback provided, and overall PI-QUAL scores. Results In phase I, 41 centers from 18 countries submitted a total of 355 multiparametric MRI studies from 71 scanners, with nine (13%) scanners achieving a PI-QUAL score of 3, 39 (55%) achieving a score of 4, and 23 (32%) achieving a score of 5. Of the 48 (n = 71 [68%]) scanners that received feedback to improve, the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences were those that least adhered to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1, criteria (44 of 48 [92%]), followed by diffusion-weighted imaging (20 of 48 [42%]) and T2-weighted imaging (19 of 48 [40%]). In phase II, 36 centers from 17 countries resubmitted revised studies, resulting in a total of 62 (n = 64 [97%]) scanners with a final PI-QUAL score of 5. Conclusion Substantial variation in global prostate MRI acquisition parameters as a measure of quality was observed, particularly with DCE sequences. Basic evaluation and modifications to MRI protocols using PI-QUAL can lead to substantial improvements in quality. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04571840 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Almansour and Chernyak in this issue.

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.

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

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

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.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

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.

The PRECISE Recommendations for Prostate MRI in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review.

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations were published in 2016 to standardize the reporting of MRI examinations performed to assess for disease progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Although a limited number of studies have reported outcomes from use of PRECISE in clinical practice, the available studies have demonstrated PRECISE to have high pooled NPV but low pooled PPV for predicting progression. Our experience in using PRECISE in clinical practice at two teaching hospitals has highlighted issues with its application and areas requiring clarification. This Clinical Perspective critically appraises PRECISE on the basis of this experience, focusing on the system's key advantages and disadvantages and exploring potential changes to improve the system's utility. These changes include consideration of image quality when applying PRECISE scoring, incorporation of quantitative thresholds for disease progression, adoption of a PRECISE 3F sub-category for progression not qualifying as substantial, and comparisons with both the baseline and most recent prior examinations. Items requiring clarification include derivation of a patient-level score in patients with multiple lesions, intended application of PRECISE score 5 (i.e., if requiring development of disease that is no longer organ-confined), and categorization of new lesions in patients with prior MRI-invisible disease.

Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy after Multiparametric Prostate MRI with VERDICT Analysis: The INNOVATE Study.

Background In men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa), up to 50% of men with positive multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] or Likert score of 3 or higher) have no clinically significant (Gleason score ≤3+3, benign) biopsy findings. Vascular, Extracellular, and Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumor (VERDICT) MRI analysis could improve the stratification of positive mpMRI findings. Purpose To evaluate VERDICT MRI, mpMRI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) as determinants of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Materials and Methods Between April 2016 and December 2019, men suspected of having PCa were prospectively recruited from two centers and underwent VERDICT MRI and mpMRI at one center before undergoing targeted biopsy. Biopsied lesion ADC, lesion-derived fractional intracellular volume (FIC), and PSAD were compared between men with csPCa and those without csPCa, using nonparametric tests subdivided by Likert scores. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to test diagnostic performance. Results Among 303 biopsy-naive men, 165 study participants (mean age, 65 years ± 7 [SD]) underwent targeted biopsy; of these, 73 had csPCa. Median lesion FIC was higher in men with csPCa (FIC, 0.53) than in those without csPCa (FIC, 0.18) for Likert 3 (P = .002) and Likert 4 (0.60 vs 0.28, P < .001) lesions. Median lesion ADC was lower for Likert 4 lesions with csPCa (0.86 × 10-3 mm2/sec) compared with lesions without csPCa (1.12 × 10-3 mm2/sec, P = .03), but there was no evidence of a difference for Likert 3 lesions (0.97 × 10-3 mm2/sec vs 1.20 × 10-3 mm2/sec, P = .09). PSAD also showed no difference for Likert 3 (0.17 ng/mL2 vs 0.12 ng/mL2, P = .07) or Likert 4 (0.14 ng/mL2 vs 0.12 ng/mL2, P = .47) lesions. The diagnostic performance of FIC (AUC, 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.00) was higher (P = .02) than that of ADC (AUC, 0.85; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.91) and PSAD (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.82) for the presence of csPCa in biopsied lesions. Conclusion Lesion fractional intracellular volume enabled better classification of clinically significant prostate cancer than did apparent diffusion coefficient and prostate-specific antigen density. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02689271 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Geographic Variability, Time Trends and Association of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Surgical Outcomes for Elderly United States Men with Prostate Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess patterns of adoption and population-level outcomes of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and association with surgical outcomes across a sample of U.S. elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based retrospective study used Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data from 2003-2016 to identify men receiving prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We characterized the proportion of men receiving preoperative MRI in each year and in each hospital referral region (HRR). A 2-stage instrumental variable analysis was performed to assess the association of preoperative MRI with margin status, surgical complications and further cancer-directed therapies. RESULTS: A total of 19,369 men received prostatectomy in 72 HRRs; the mean age was 70.2 years (SD 3.2). The proportion of men receiving a preoperative MRI increased from 2.9% to 28.2% over the study period and ranged from 0.0% to 28.8% in the different HRRs. In our instrumental variable analysis, preoperative MRI was associated with lower odds of positive surgical margin (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97, p=0.01) lower odds of blood transfusions at 30 and 90 days (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.83, p=0.003 and OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.84, p=0.004) but higher odds of further treatments (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.32-1.70, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Given that a minority of men receive presurgical MRIs with marked geographic variability, the association of MRI with lower odds of positive surgical margin suggests that efforts to support the dissemination of prostate MRI may improve surgical outcomes-but may come with a tendency for more resource-intensive cancer care overall.

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.

MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

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.

MRI Targeted Prostate Biopsy Techniques: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men worldwide. Systematic transrectal prostate biopsy is commonly used to obtain tissue to establish the diagnosis. In recent years, however, more clinically significant cancer and less clinically insignificant cancer have been detected with MRI targeted biopsy (on the basis of an MRI examination performed before consideration of biopsy) than with systematic biopsy. This approach of performing MRI before biopsy has become, or is becoming, a standard of practice in centers throughout the world. This growing use of an MRI-directed pathway is leading to performance of a larger volume of MRI targeted prostate biopsies. The three common MRI targeted biopsy techniques are cognitive biopsy, MRI-ultrasound software fusion biopsy, and MRI in-bore guided biopsy. These techniques for using MRI information at biopsy can be performed via a transrectal or transperineal approach. The purpose of this review is to describe the three MRI targeted biopsy techniques and their advantages and shortcomings. Comparisons among the techniques are summarized on the basis of the available evidence. Studies to date have had heterogeneous results, and the preferred technique remains debated.

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.

PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems.

PI-RADS version 2.1 updates the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and revises the imaging interpretation criteria while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved, and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include the need for more detailed mpMRI protocols with optimization for 1.5-T and 3-T systems; lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications of the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone (CZ) assessment; the need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background changes in signal intensity in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS M category); inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; adjustments to the structured report template, including standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence).

Gastric cancer and image-derived quantitative parameters: Part 2-a critical review of DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT findings.

There is yet no consensus on the application of functional imaging and qualitative image interpretation in the management of gastric cancer. In this second part, we will discuss the role of image-derived quantitative parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) in gastric cancer, as both techniques have been shown to be promising and useful tools in the clinical decision making of this disease. We will focus on different aspects including aggressiveness assessment, staging and Lauren type discrimination, prognosis prediction and response evaluation. Although both the number of articles and the patients enrolled in the studies were rather small, there is evidence that quantitative parameters from DCE-MRI such as Ktrans, Ve, Kep and AUC could be promising image-derived surrogate parameters for the management of gastric cancer. Data from 18F-FDG PET/CT studies showed that standardised uptake value (SUV) is significantly associated with the aggressiveness, treatment response and prognosis of this disease. Along with the results from diffusion-weighted MRI and contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography presented in Part 1 of this critical review, there are additional image-derived quantitative parameters from DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT that hold promise as effective tools in the diagnostic pathway of gastric cancer. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis from DCE-MRI and18F-FDG PET/CT allows the extrapolation of multiple image-derived parameters. • Data from DCE-MRI (Ktrans, Ve, Kep and AUC) and 18F-FDG PET/CT (SUV) are non-invasive, quantitative image-derived parameters that hold promise in the evaluation of the aggressiveness, treatment response and prognosis of gastric cancer.