Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 71
1.
Arch Ital Urol Androl ; 96(1): 12263, 2024 Mar 07.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38451241

To the Editor, Pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) is a well-recognised clinical entity characterised by functionally significant impairment of drainage of urine at the level of the pelvi-ureteric junction due to extrinsic or intrinsic obstruction and is encountered both by adult and paediatric urologists alike. Management of PUJO has been surgical historically, and the gold standard has been an open Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty [...].


Laparoscopy , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Ureter , Ureteral Obstruction , Adult , Humans , Child , Kidney Pelvis/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures , Ureter/surgery , Kidney , Ureteral Obstruction/surgery , Treatment Outcome
6.
BMJ Open ; 13(8): e074009, 2023 08 22.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37607794

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has transformed the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, allowing for improved risk stratification and more targeted subsequent management. However, concerns exist over the interobserver variability of images and the applicability of this model long term, especially considering the current shortage of radiologists and the growing ageing population. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into clinical practice to support diagnostic and therapeutic imaging analysis to overcome these concerns. The following report details a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the accuracy of AI in predicting primary prostate cancer on mpMRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. All relevant articles published between January 2016 and February 2023 will be eligible for inclusion. To be included, articles must use AI to study MRI prostate images to detect prostate cancer. All included articles will be in full-text, reporting original data and written in English. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. The QUADAS-2 score will assess the quality and risk of bias across selected studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293745.


Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Artificial Intelligence , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
7.
J Clin Med ; 12(7)2023 Apr 06.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37048815

Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS.

8.
J Robot Surg ; 17(2): 705-706, 2023 Apr.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35414034

We commend Veerman et al. for investigating the diagnostic performance of radiological apical tumor involvement (radATI) in preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer. This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI to detect pathological ATI (pathATI) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy specimens. They found patients with radATI more likely to develop biochemical recurrence (BCR), p = 0.003, and have apical positive surgical margins (APSM), p = 0.004. We believe that the author's acknowledgement of the relationship between tumor location and cancer risk is an important step in the classification of prostate cancer. An important question that is under addressed is, what is it about apical tumors that carry additional risk? Higher rates of PSM due to incomplete surgical excision may contribute to increased recurrence risk in the apex. If this is the case, surgical management must be tailored by a tumor location-based risk assessment. The literature suggests that a single APSM may be clinically insignificant for long-term outcomes. Conversely, the authors also recommend radATI be treated with reduced apical nerve sparing to avoid APSM. We believe that this approach may lead to overtreatment in the presence of an otherwise good prognosis. We believe the extent of APSMs upon diagnosis would be an interesting topic for further investigation. The authors may also wish to perform multivariable analysis for the effect of radATI on BCR. We believe that MRI may play a critical role in enhancing diagnosis and prognostication of prostate cancer.


Prostatic Neoplasms , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Male , Humans , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Retrospective Studies , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Prostate/surgery , Prostatectomy/methods , Margins of Excision , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Prostate-Specific Antigen
9.
Radiology ; 307(1): e220762, 2023 04.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36511804

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.


Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia/pathology , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Neoplasm Grading , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Inflammation/pathology
10.
Cancers (Basel) ; 14(14)2022 Jul 19.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35884558

Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven utility in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA PET) has yet to be established. This study aims to systematically review the current literature comparing the diagnostic performance of mpMRI and PSMA PET imaging to diagnose primary prostate cancer. A systematic literature search was performed up to December 2021. Quality analyses were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis involved the pooling of the reported diagnostic performances of each modality, and differences in per-patient and per-lesion analysis were compared using a Fisher's exact test. Ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. At a per-patient level, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83−0.91) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90−0.96, p < 0.01); 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23−0.71) vs. 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23−0.84, p > 0.05); and 0.84 vs. 0.91, respectively. At a per-lesion level, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were lower, at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52−0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62−0.92, p < 0.001); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81−0.95) vs. 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47−0.90, p < 0.05); and 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively. High heterogeneity was observed between studies. PSMA PET/CT may better confirm the presence of prostate cancer than mpMRI. However, both modalities appear comparable in determining the localisation of the lesions.

11.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e050376, 2022 Jan 05.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34987040

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved the triage of men with suspected prostate cancer, through precision prebiopsy identification of clinically significant disease. While multiple important characteristics, including tumour grade and size have been shown to affect conspicuity on mpMRI, tumour location and association with mpMRI visibility is an underexplored facet of this field. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to collate the extant evidence comparing MRI performance between different locations within the prostate in men with existing or suspected prostate cancer. This review will help clarify mechanisms that underpin whether a tumour is visible, and the prognostic implications of our findings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane will be systematically searched for relevant studies. Eligible studies will be full-text English-language articles that examine the effect of zonal location on mpMRI conspicuity. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A third reviewer will be involved if consensus is not achieved. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will inform the methodology and reporting of the review. Study bias will be assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A thematic approach will be used to synthesise key location-based factors associated with mpMRI conspicuity. A meta-analysis will be conducted to form a pooled value of the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI at different tumour locations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021228087.


Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Systematic Reviews as Topic
12.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; 25(1): 55-57, 2022 03.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34145427

Prostate cancer affects a significant proportion of men worldwide. Evidence from genetic and clinical studies suggests that there may be a causal association between prostate cancer and the human papilloma virus (HPV). As HPV is a vaccine-preventable pathogen, the possibility of a role in prostate cancer causation may reinforce the importance of effective HPV vaccination campaigns. This is of particular relevance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have considerable effects on HPV vaccine uptake and distribution.


Alphapapillomavirus , COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Prostatic Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Papillomaviridae , Papillomavirus Infections/complications , Papillomavirus Infections/epidemiology , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Papillomavirus Vaccines/therapeutic use , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/etiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/prevention & control , Vaccination
13.
J Biophotonics ; 15(2): e202100219, 2022 02.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34799996

Non-invasive promotion of myogenic regulatory factors (MRFs), through photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), may be a viable method of facilitating skeletal muscle regeneration post-injury, given the importance of MRF in skeletal muscle regeneration. The aim of this systematic review was to collate current evidence, identifying key themes and changes in expression of MRF in in vivo models. Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically searched and identified 1459 studies, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. Myogenic determination factor was most consistently regulated in response to PBMT treatment, and the expression of remaining MRFs was heterogenous. All studies exhibited a high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding in PBMT application and MRF analysis. Our review suggests that the current evidence base for MRF expression from PBMT is highly variable. Future research should focus on developing a robust methodology for determining the effect of laser therapy on MRF expression, as well as long-term assessment of skeletal muscle regeneration.


Low-Level Light Therapy , Myogenic Regulatory Factors , Low-Level Light Therapy/methods , Muscle Development/genetics , Myogenic Regulatory Factors/genetics , Myogenic Regulatory Factors/metabolism , RNA, Messenger
14.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e052277, 2021 12 10.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34893484

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has improved almost every aspect of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. However, the novel imaging technique, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) may have demonstrable accuracy in detecting and staging prostate cancer. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mpMRI to PSMA PET for the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed for screening, data extraction, statistical analysis and reporting. Included papers will be full-text articles providing original data, written in English articles and comparing the use of PSMA PET with mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. All studies published between July 1977 and March 2021 will be eligible for inclusion. Study bias and quality will be assessed using Quadas-2 score. To ensure the quality of the reporting of studies, this protocol is written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239296.


Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Positron-Emission Tomography , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Systematic Reviews as Topic
16.
Eur Urol Open Sci ; 30: 16-24, 2021 Aug.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34337543

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for suspected prostate cancer in patients following prior biopsy. However, not all significant cancers are detected by mpMRI. The PICTURE study provides the ideal opportunity to investigate cancer undetected by mpMRI owing to the use of 5 mm transperineal template mapping (TTPM) biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To summarise attributes of cancers systematically undetected by mpMRI in patients with prior biopsy. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which men requiring repeat biopsy underwent mpMRI followed by TTPM biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Attributes were compared between cancers detected and undetected by mpMRI at the patient level. Four predefined histopathological thresholds were used as the target condition for TTPM biopsy. Application of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was explored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When nonsuspicious mpMRI was defined as Likert score 1-2, 2.9% of patients (3/103; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-8.3%) with definition 1 disease (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or maximum cancer core length [MCCL] ≥ 6 mm of any grade) had their cancer not detected by mpMRI. This proportion was 6.5% (11/168; 95% CI 3.3-11%) for definition 2 disease (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm of any grade), 4.8% (7/146; 95% CI 2.0-9.6%) for any amount of Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 cancer, and 9.3% (20/215; 95% CI 5.8-14%) for any cancer. Definition 1 cancers undetected by mpMRI had lower overall Gleason score (p = 0.02) and maximum Gleason score (p = 0.01) compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had shorter MCCL than cancers detected by mpMRI for every cancer threshold: definition 1, 6 versus 8 mm (p = 0.02); definition 2, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.04); any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.03); and any cancer, 3 versus 5 mm (p = 0.0009). A theoretical PSAD threshold of 0.15 ng/ml/ml reduced the proportion of patients with undetected disease on nonsuspicious mpMRI to 0% (0/105; 95% CI 0-3.5%) for definition 1, 0.58% (1/171; 95% CI 0.01-3.2%) for definition 2, and 0% (0/146) for any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. CONCLUSIONS: Few significant cancers are undetected by mpMRI in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsy. Undetected tumours are of lower overall and maximum Gleason grade and shorter cancer length compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: In patients with a previous prostate biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overlooks few prostate cancers, and these tend to be smaller and less aggressive than cancer that is detected.

18.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e047664, 2021 05 05.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33952556

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that visibility of prostate cancer on magnetic resonance (MRI) may be related to likelihood of adverse pathological outcomes. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy remains a significant clinical challenge and a means of predicting likelihood of this prior to surgery could inform treatment choice. It appears that MRI could be a potential candidate strategy for BCR prediction, and as such, there is a need to review extant literature on the prognostic capability of MRI. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in predicting BCR following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases will be searched and screening will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In order to meet the inclusion criteria, papers must be English-language articles involving patients who have had bpMRI or mpMRI for suspected prostate cancer and have undergone radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy. Patients must have had prostate-specific antigen monitoring before and after surgery. All relevant papers published from July 1977 to October 2020 will be eligible for inclusion. The Newcastle-Ottawa score will be used to determine the quality and bias of the studies. This protocol is written in-line with the PRISMA protocol 2015 checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no relevant ethical concerns. Dissemination of this protocol will be via peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020206074.


Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery
19.
Trop Med Int Health ; 26(7): 753-759, 2021 07.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33817915

OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics, details of diagnosis and outcomes of urogenital tuberculosis (UGTB) in a low-prevalence country. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 37 consecutive patients diagnosed with UGTB between 1st January 2014 and 31st October 2019 in an East London hospital. RESULTS: 68% (25/37) of patients were male and the median age was 42 years (IQR 34-55). 89% (33/37) of patients were born outside the United Kingdom with 65% (24/37) born in the South Asian region. Renal (32.4%), epididymal (24.3%) and endometrial TB (21.6%) were the most prevalent forms of UGTB. Only 13.5% of UGTB patients had concurrent pulmonary TB. The median length of time from symptom onset to treatment was 163 days, while endometrial TB had an average delay to diagnosis of 564 days. Approximately half of patients with UGTB were culture positive (51.4%). However, 70% of early morning urines (EMUs) sent in urinary TB were culture positive. 11 patients (30.6%) underwent two or more invasive procedures, such as biopsy to obtain specimen samples. The mean treatment length for all UGTB cases was 7.3 months (SD 3.1). Notably, 25% of patients with endometrial TB required surgery despite antituberculous treatment. CONCLUSIONS: UGTB is challenging to diagnose as early disease is often asymptomatic. Clinicians faced with non-specific symptoms, or features suggestive of urogenital malignancy amongst patients from TB-endemic areas, should maintain a high suspicion of UGTB.


Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Tuberculosis, Urogenital/diagnosis , Adult , Biopsy , Female , Humans , London , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Tuberculosis, Urogenital/diagnostic imaging , Tuberculosis, Urogenital/pathology , Urinary Tract/diagnostic imaging , Urinary Tract/microbiology , Urinary Tract/pathology
20.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(8)2021 Apr 20.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33924255

Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing.

...