Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of pre-biopsy MRI-based assessment on a large prostate cancer centre diagnostic population and activity: 10 years on.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate mpMRI was introduced in 2011 as a secondary test and subsequently integrated into a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics unit representing a population of approximately 550,000 people. The following represents an audit of its step-wise introduction between 2 index years, 2009 and 2018, focusing on the activity, patient outcomes and economic benefits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 2 distinct years were selected for relying on a transrectal ultrasound biopsy pathway in 2009 to an mpMRI-based pathway in 2018. All referrals were retrospectively screened and compared for age, PSA levels, DRE findings, biopsy history, biopsy and mpMRI allocation data. Cost analysis was determined using local unit procedure costs. RESULTS: Patients referred included 648 in 2009 and 714 in 2018. mpMRI seldomly informed decision to biopsy in 2009 (9.8%), while in 2018 it was performed in the pre-biopsy setting in 87.9% cases and enabled biopsy avoidance in 137 patients. In 2018, there was a 31.8% decrease in the number of biopsies in patients without previous PCa diagnosis, coupled with an increase in diagnostic rates of csPCa, from 28.6 to 49.0% (p < 0.0001) and a reduction in negative biopsy rates from 52.3 to 33.8%. mpMRI had a positive impact on the system with reduced patient morbidity and post-procedural complications. The estimated overall cost savings amount to approximately £75,000/year for PCa diagnosis and £11,000/year due to reduced complications. CONCLUSION: Our evaluation shows the mpMRI-based pathway has improved early detection of csPCa and reduction of repeat biopsies, resulting in significant financial benefits for the local healthcare system.

Vector Prostate Biopsy: A Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image Fusion Transperineal Biopsy Technique Using Electromagnetic Needle Tracking Under Local Anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now standard for assessment of suspected prostate cancer (PCa). A variety of approaches to MRI-based targeting has revolutionised prostate biopsies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the procedure and show the accuracy and tolerability of a novel Vector MRI/ultrasound fusion transperineal (TP) biopsy technique that uses electromagnetic (EM) needle tracking under local anaesthesia (LA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Vector prostate biopsy using BiopSee fusion software, EM tracking technology, and transrectal ultrasound was performed in 69 patients meeting the biopsy criteria in two UK centres between September 2020 and August 2022. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Stepper-mounted rectal ultrasound images were fused with MRI scans. LA was applied into two defined perineal tracks and a needle sheath with an EM sensor was inserted. The biopsy needle was directed precisely through the sheath to MRI targets under EM tracking. Biopsies were taken without antibiotic prophylaxis. MEASUREMENTS: Cancer detection (any PCa; grade group ≥2), side effects, and patient experience measures were recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Cancer detection in patients with Likert 4-5 lesions was 98% for any PCa and 83% for grade group ≥2. According to the 50 questionnaires returned, 42 patients (84%) reported no or minimal pain, while 40 (80%) reported no or minimal discomfort. No episodes of postoperative urinary retention occurred, and only one patient required treatment for infection. Limitations include the low patient number and incomplete responses to questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: This novel Vector technique provides a feasible and tolerable procedure for MRI/ultrasound fusion TP biopsy under LA, with high cancer detection rates. This is achieved while maintaining patient comfort and with minimal rates of complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report a novel technique that uses electromagnetic needle tracking to perform highly accurate and comfortable prostate biopsies through the perineum under local anaesthetic.

Natural History of Patients with Prostate MRI Likert 1-3 and Development of RosCaP: a Multivariate Risk Score for Clinically Significant Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) with Gleason ≥3 + 4 is found in 10% negative prebiopsy multiparametric (mp) MRI cases and varies widely for equivocal mpMRI cases. The objective of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes of patients with negative and equivocal mpMRIs and to develop a predictive score for csCaP risk stratification in this group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent an upfront mpMRI between May 2015 and March 2018 with an MRI score Likert 1 to 3 were included in the study. Patients had either a CaP diagnosis at MRI-targeted biopsy or were not diagnosed and attended follow-up in the community. Outcomes were analysed through the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox Model. Regression coefficients of significant variables were used to develop a Risk of significant Cancer of the Prostate score (RosCaP). RESULTS: At first assessment 281/469 patients had mpMRI only and 188/469 mpMRI and biopsy, 26 csCaP were found at biopsy, including 10/26 in Likert 3 patients. 12/371 patients discharged without CaP after first assessment were diagnosed with csCaP during a median of 34.2 months' follow-up, 11/12 diagnosis occurred in patients omitting initial biopsy. csCaP diagnosis-free survival was 95.7% in the MRI group and 99.1% in the biopsy group. From these outcomes, a continuous RosCaP score was developed: RosCaP = 0.083 x Age - 0.202 x (1/PSA Density) + 0.786 (if Likert 3), and 4 risk classes were proposed. Limitations include retrospective design and absence of external validation. CONCLUSION: Age, PSA Density and MRI Likert score were significantly associated to the risk of csCaP and utilised to devise the novel RosCap predictive score focused to support risk assessment in patients with negative or equivocal mpMRI results.

Survey on prostate MRI reading and interpretation among urology residents in Italy, Brazil and the UK: a cry for help.

BACKGROUND: Prostate MRI is an essential tool in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer and its accurate reading helps decision to biopsy. The aim of this study was to assess the Urology residents' level of confidence in reading and interpreting prostate MRI, their interest in new learning opportunities and whether prostate MRI training should be part of the urology core curriculum during residency. METHODS: A 23-item survey has been created and distributed via Web to an international cohort of Urology residents over a 3-month period. Surveys obtained from Countries representing >10% total distribution of responses were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 304 complete surveys were obtained from Urology residents, with a geographical prevalence from Europe (59.54%, 181/304) and South America (29.28%, 89/304). Only 17-20% of residents reported having received formal prostate MRI training during residency. Overall, <20% residents expressed to feel confident in reading and interpreting prostate MRI. As a result, >90% Urology trainees stated they would be willing to receive a formal training and would be interested in new learning opportunities in MRI reading and interpretation during residency, independently of their year of training. Despite UK Urology trainees showed to have a higher availability of MRI resources and MRI-based biopsies compared to the other countries, they still expressed concerns in regard to not feeling confident with MRI reading and interpretation and requested a formal training. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the need for major learning opportunities and a formal training in prostate MRI reading and interpretation during urology residency.

Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic and therapeutic work-up has evolved significantly in the last decade, with pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI now widely endorsed within international guidelines. There is potential to move away from the widespread use of systematic biopsy cores and towards an individualised risk-stratified approach. However, the evidence on the optimal biopsy approach remains heterogeneous, and the aim of this review is to highlight the most relevant features following a critical assessment of the literature. The commonest biopsy approaches are via the transperineal (TP) or transrectal (TR) routes. The former is considered more advantageous due to its negligible risk of post-procedural sepsis and reduced need for antimicrobial prophylaxis; the more recent development of local anaesthetic (LA) methods now makes this approach feasible in the clinic. Beyond this, several techniques are available, including cognitive registration, MRI-Ultrasound fusion imaging and direct MRI in-bore guided biopsy. Evidence shows that performing targeted biopsies reduces the number of cores required and can achieve acceptable rates of detection whilst helping to minimise complications and reducing pathologist workloads and costs to health-care facilities. Pre-biopsy MRI has revolutionised the diagnostic pathway for PCa, and optimising the biopsy process is now a focus. Combining MR imaging, TP biopsy and a more widespread use of LA in an outpatient setting seems a reasonable solution to balance health-care costs and benefits, however, local choices are likely to depend on the expertise and experience of clinicians and on the technology available.

Diagnostic value of the abnormal digital rectal examination in the modern MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Objective: Currently the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) as a standalone referral criterion for suspected prostate cancer. Unlike referrals for a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) which are triaged directly to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an abnormal DRE requires re-examination in a secondary clinic first. Here, we investigated the ongoing value of the abnormal DRE as a referral criterion. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of patients referred to secondary care for suspected prostate cancer based on an abnormal DRE over a 15-month period at a single UK hospital (n = 158). Age, PSA, primary and repeat DRE findings and eventual diagnosis were collated. Results: A concurrent raised PSA was present in 65/158 (41%). Concordance between primary and secondary care DRE was only 72/158 (46%). The overall and significant cancer detection rate was 26/158 (16%) and 22/158 (14%), respectively. Among men with a concurrent raised PSA, 19/65 (29%) had significant cancer found, whereas with an abnormal primary care DRE and normal PSA (n = 93), only 3/93 (3%) had a significant cancer. Mandating a PSA before referral for an abnormal DRE would have redirected 65/158 (41%) of men to MRI first, negating the need for a repeat DRE (p < 0.0001). This finding was recapitulated in a second prospective validation cohort (n = 30) with 9/30 (30%) redirected to MRI first. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to investigate the value of the DRE in contemporary practice. We propose that PSA is used to triage men with an abnormal DRE to MRI without needing a repeat DRE. If the PSA is normal, the diagnostic yield is low but may still warrant a repeat DRE to assess the need for further investigations. Additional multicentre studies are required to further validate our findings. Level of evidence: 4.

MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the predictive value and correlation to pathological progression of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system in the follow-up of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS). METHODS: A total of 295 men enrolled on an AS programme between 2011 and 2018 were included. Baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed at AS entry to guide biopsy. The follow-up mpMRI studies were prospectively reported by two sub-specialist uroradiologists with 10 years and 13 years of experience. PRECISE scores were dichotomized at the cut-off value of 4, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Diagnostic performance was further quantified by using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) which was based on the results of targeted MRI-US fusion biopsy. Univariate analysis using Cox regression was performed to assess which baseline clinical and mpMRI parameters were related to disease progression on AS. RESULTS: Progression rate of the cohort was 13.9% (41/295) over a median follow-up of 52 months. With a cut-off value of category ≥ 4, the PRECISE scoring system showed sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for predicting progression on AS of 0.76, 0.89, 0.52 and 0.96, respectively. The AUC was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.74-0.90). Prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), Likert lesion score and index lesion size were the only significant baseline predictors of progression (each p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The PRECISE scoring system showed good overall performance, and the high NPV may help limit the number of follow-up biopsies required in patients on AS. KEY POINTS: • PRECISE scores 1-3 have high NPV which could reduce the need for re-biopsy during active surveillance. • PRECISE scores 4-5 have moderate PPV and should trigger either close monitoring or re-biopsy. • Three baseline predictors (PSA density, lesion size and Likert score) have a significant impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) time.

Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.

Comparison of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Likert and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) multiparametric (mp) MRI scoring systems for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: 199 biopsy-naïve males undergoing prostate mpMRI were prospectively scored with Likert and PI-RADS systems by four experienced radiologists. A binary cut-off (threshold score ≥3) was used to analyze histological results by three groups: negative, insignificant disease (Gleason 3 + 3; iPCa), and csPCa (Gleason ≥3 +4). Lesion-level results and prostate zonal location were also compared. RESULTS: 129/199 (64.8%) males underwent biopsy, 96 with Likert or PI-RADS score ≥3, and 21 with negative MRI. A further 12 patients were biopsied during follow-up (mean 507 days). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 87/199 (43.7%) patients, 65 with (33.6%) csPCa. 30/92 (32.6%) patients with negative MRI were biopsied, with an NPV of 83.3% for cancer and 86.7% for csPCa. Likert and PI-RADS score differences were observed in 92 patients (46.2%), but only for 16 patients (8%) at threshold score ≥3. Likert scoring had higher specificity than PI-RADS (0.77 vs 0.66), higher area under the curve (0.92 vs 0.87, p = 0.002) and higher PPV (0.66 vs 0.58); NPV and sensitivity were the same. Likert had more five score results (58%) compared to PI-RADS (36%), but with similar csCPa detection (81.0 and 80.6% respectively). Likert demonstrated lower proportion of false positive in the predominately AFMS-involving lesions. CONCLUSION: Likert and PI-RADS systems both demonstrate high cancer detection rates. Likert scoring had a higher AUC with moderately higher specificity and lower positive call rate and could potentially help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper illustrates that the Likert scoring system has potential to help urologists reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed.

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: The next gold standard? Yes!

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) differs from other surgical techniques for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) in that it removes the entire benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) component of the prostate. We summarise the main advantages of AEEP compared to other surgical techniques for BPO. These include better urodynamic relief of bladder outlet obstruction, superior outcomes for urinary retention even in the presence of impaired detrusor contractility, safe and effective for any size prostate, and superior durability compared to vaporisation and resection techniques. We summarise evidence that suggests AEEP offers outcomes that are independent of patient age and prostate volume. We conclude that AEEP is the gold standard surgical treatment for men with either lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention, regardless of prostate volume, detrusor contractility and age. It offers the ability to safely and effectively treat a wider range of patients than any other BPO procedure. More widespread use of mentorship programmes, that take advantage of the growing number of experienced mentors, is recommended to train more urologists in AEEP.

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The reported negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI is used by some clinicians to aid in decision making about whether or not to proceed to biopsy. OBJECTIVE: We aim to perform a contemporary systematic review that reflects the latest literature on optimal mpMRI techniques and scoring systems to update the NPV of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a systematic literature search and included studies from 2016 to September 4, 2019, which assessed the NPV of mpMRI for csPCa, using biopsy or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. To ensure that studies included in this analysis reflect contemporary practice, we only included studies in which mpMRI findings were interpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) or similar Likert grading system. We define negative mpMRI as either (1) PIRADS/Likert 1-2 or (2) PIRADS/Likert 1-3; csPCa was defined as either (1) Gleason grade group ≥2 or (2) Gleason grade group ≥3. We calculated NPV separately for each combination of negative mpMRI and csPCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 42 studies with 7321 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Using definition (1) for negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV for biopsy-naïve men was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.1-93.1%). When defining csPCa using definition (2), the NPV for csPCa was 97.1% (95% CI 94.9-98.7%). Calculation of the pooled NPV using definition (2) for negative mpMRI and definition (1) for csPCa yielded the following: 86.8% (95% CI 80.1-92.4%). Using definition (2) for both negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV from two studies was 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-98.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is generally an accurate test for ruling out csPCa. However, we observed heterogeneity in the NPV estimates, and local institutional data should form the basis of decision making if available. PATIENT SUMMARY: The negative predictive values should assist in decision making for clinicians considering not proceeding to biopsy in men with elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reported as negative (or equivocal) on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert scoring. Some 7-10% of men, depending on the setting, will miss a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer if they do not proceed to biopsy. Given the institutional variation in results, it is of upmost importance to base decision making on local data if available.

Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To assess the added value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) in prostate MR in clinical practice. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-four patients underwent prostate MRI, with T2 and DWI sequences initially interpreted, prior to full multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) interpretation using a Likert 1-5 scale. A prospective opinion was given on likely benefit of contrast prior to review of the DCE sequence, and retrospectively following full mpMRI review. The final histology result following targeted and/or systematic biopsy of the prostate was used for outcome purposes. RESULTS: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and mpMRI were assigned the same score in 86% of cases; when dichotomising to a negative or positive MRI (Likert score ≥ 3), concordance increased to 92.8%. At Likert score ≥ 3 bpMRI detected 89.9% of all cancers and 93.5% clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) and mpMRI 90.7% and 94.6%, respectively. mpMRI had fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%) and a lower Likert 3 rate (8.3% vs 17%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%), but similar sensitivity (95% versus 94%) and ROC-AUC (90% vs 89%). At a positive MRI threshold of Likert ≥ 4, mpMRI had a higher sensitivity than bpMRI (89% versus 80%) and detected more csPCa (89.2% versus 79.6%). DCE was prospectively considered of potential benefit in 27.3%, but readers would only recall 11% of patients for DCE sequences, mainly to assess score 3 peripheral zone lesions. Following full mpMRI review, DCE was considered helpful in 28.4% of cases; in 23/75 (30.6%) of these cases this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence, reasons included increased confidence, presence of "safety-net" lesions or inflammatory lesions. CONCLUSION: BpMRI has equivalent cancer detection rates to mpMRI; however, mpMRI had fewer Likert 3 call rates and increased specificity and was subjectively considered of benefit by readers in 28.4% of cases. KEY POINTS: • bpMRI has similar cancer detection rates to the full mpMRI protocol at a positive MRI threshold of Likert 3. • mpMRI had fewer intermediate category 3 calls (8.3%) than bpMRI (17%) and fewer false positives than bpMRI (11.4% vs 18.9%), conferring higher specificity (74% vs 67%). • Readers considered DCE beneficial in 28.4% of cases, but in a relatively high number (30.6%) this only became apparent after reviewing the sequence.

Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess cancer detection rates of different target-dependent transperineal magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided biopsy templates with reduced number of systematic cores. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-centre outcome of transperineal MR/US fusion-guided biopsies of 487 men with a single target MR imaging (MRI) lesion, prospectively collected between 2012 and 2016. All men underwent transperineal targeted biopsy (TB) with two cores, followed by 18-24 systematic sector biopsies (SB) using the Ginsburg protocol. Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer detection rates for two-core TB, four-core extended TB (eTB), 10- to 20-core saturation TB (sTB) including cores from sectors adjacent to the target, and 14 core ipsilateral TB (iTB) were compared to combined TB+SB. RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 345 men and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 211 men. TB alone detected 67%, eTB 76%, sTB 91% and iTB 91% of these Gleason score 7-10 cancers. In the subgroup of 33 men (7% of cohort) with an anterior >0.5 mL highly suspicious MRI lesion and a prostate volume ≤45 mL, four-core eTB detected 31 of 32 cancers (97%) and all 26 Gleason score 7-10 cancers. CONCLUSION: sTB detected Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 25% more of the men than a two-core TB approach, and in almost as many men (91%) as the 20-26-core combined TB+SB, while needing only 10-20 cores. A four-core extended TB may suffice for large, highly suspicious anterior lesions in small or slightly enlarged prostates.

Removing rician bias in diffusional kurtosis of the prostate using real-data reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare prostate diffusional kurtosis imaging (DKI) metrics generated using phase-corrected real data with those generated using magnitude data with and without noise compensation (NC). METHODS: Diffusion-weighted images were acquired at 3T in 16 prostate cancer patients, measuring 6 b-values (0-1500 s/mm2 ), each acquired with 6 signal averages along 3 diffusion directions, with noise-only images acquired to allow NC. In addition to conventional magnitude averaging, phase-corrected real data were averaged in an attempt to reduce rician noise-bias, with a range of phase-correction low-pass filter (LPF) sizes (8-128 pixels) tested. Each method was also tested using simulations. Pixelwise maps of apparent diffusion (D) and apparent kurtosis (K) were calculated for magnitude data with and without NC and phase-corrected real data. Average values were compared in tumor, normal transition zone (NTZ), and normal peripheral zone (NPZ). RESULTS: Simulations indicated LPF size can strongly affect K metrics, where 64-pixel LPFs produced accurate metrics. Relative to metrics estimated from magnitude data without NC, median NC K were lower (P < 0.0001) by 6/11/8% in tumor/NPZ/NTZ, 64-LPF real-data K were lower (P < 0.0001) by 4/10/7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with magnitude data with NC, phase-corrected real data can produce similar K, although the choice of phase-correction LPF should be chosen carefully.

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.

Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess early outcomes since the introduction of an active surveillance (AS) protocol incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided baseline biopsies and image-based surveillance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A new AS protocol mandating image-guided baseline biopsies, annual mpMRI and 3-monthly prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, but which retained protocol re-biopsies, was tested. Pathological progression, treatment conversion and triggers for non-protocol biopsy were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Data from 157 men enrolled in the AS protocol (median age 64 years, PSA 6.8 ng/mL, follow-up 39 months) were interrogated. A total of 12 men (7.6%) left the AS programme by choice. Of the 145 men who remained, 104 had re-biopsies either triggered by a rise in PSA level, change in mpMRI findings or by protocol. Overall, 23 men (15.9%) experienced disease progression; pathological changes were observed in 20 men and changes in imaging results were observed in three men. Of these 23 men, 17 switched to treatment, giving a conversion rate of 11.7% (<4% per year). Of the 20 men with pathological progression, this was detected in four of them after a PSA increase triggered a re-biopsy, while in 10 men progression was detected after an mpMRI change. Progression was detected in six men, however, solely after a protocol re-biopsy without prior PSA or mpMRI changes. Using PSA and mpMRI changes alone to detect progression was found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 70.0% and 81.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our AS protocol, with thorough baseline assessment and imaging-based surveillance, showed low rates of progression and treatment conversion. Changes in mpMRI findings were the principle trigger for detecting progression by imaging alone or pathologically; however, per protocol re-biopsy still detected a significant number of pathological progressions without mpMRI or PSA changes.

Supporting prostate cancer survivors in primary care: Findings from a pilot trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (PROSPECTIV).

PURPOSE: This study sought to test the acceptability and feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (NLPI) delivered in primary care to prostate cancer survivors, and to provide preliminary estimates of the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: Men who reported an ongoing problem with urinary, bowel, sexual or hormone-related functioning/vitality on a self-completion questionnaire were invited to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to the NLPI plus usual care, or to usual care alone. Recruitment and retention rates were assessed. Prostate-related quality of life, self-efficacy, unmet needs, and psychological morbidity were measured at baseline and 9 months. Health-care resource use data was also collected. An integrated qualitative study assessed experiences of the intervention. RESULTS: 61% eligible men (83/136) participated in the trial, with an 87% (72/83) completion rate. Interviews indicated that the intervention filled an important gap in care following treatment completion, helping men to self-manage, and improving their sense of well-being. However, only a small reduction in unmet needs and small improvement in self-efficacy was observed, and no difference in prostate-related quality of life or psychological morbidity. Patients receiving the NLPI recorded more primary care visits, while the usual care group recorded more secondary care visits. Most men (70%; (21/30)) felt the optimal time for the intervention was around the time of diagnosis/before the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention in primary care is feasible, acceptable and potentially useful to prostate cancer survivors.