False Positive Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Phenotypes in the Biopsy-naïve Prostate: Are They Distinct from Significant Cancer-associated Lesions? Lessons from PROMIS.

BACKGROUND: False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) phenotypes prompt unnecessary biopsies. The Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore such phenotypes in biopsy-naïve men with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and suspected cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare mpMRI lesions in men with/without significant cancer on transperineal mapping biopsy (TPM). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROMIS participants (n=235) underwent mpMRI followed by a combined biopsy procedure at University College London Hospital, including 5-mm TPM as the reference standard. Patients were divided into four mutually exclusive groups according to TPM findings: (1) no cancer, (2) insignificant cancer, (3) definition 2 significant cancer (Gleason ≥3+4 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥4mm of any grade), and (4) definition 1 significant cancer (Gleason ≥4+3 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥6mm of any grade). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Index and/or additional lesions present in 178 participants were compared between TPM groups in terms of number, conspicuity, volume, location, and radiological characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Most lesions were located in the peripheral zone. More men with significant cancer had two or more lesions than those without significant disease (67% vs 37%; p< 0.001). In the former group, index lesions were larger (mean volume 0.68 vs 0.50 ml; p< 0.001, Wilcoxon test), more conspicuous (Likert 4-5: 79% vs 22%; p< 0.001), and diffusion restricted (mean apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]: 0.73 vs 0.86; p< 0.001, Wilcoxon test). In men with Likert 3 index lesions, log2PSA density and index lesion ADC were significant predictors of definition 1/2 disease in a logistic regression model (mean cross-validated area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve: 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.87]). CONCLUSIONS: Significant cancer-associated MRI lesions in biopsy-naïve men have clinical-radiological differences, with lesions seen in prostates without significant disease. MRI-calculated PSA density and ADC could predict significant cancer in those with indeterminate MRI phenotypes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions that mimic prostate cancer but are, in fact, benign prompt unnecessary biopsies in thousands of men with raised prostate-specific antigen. In this study we found that, on closer look, such false positive lesions have different features from cancerous ones. This means that doctors could potentially develop better tools to identify cancer on MRI and spare some patients from unnecessary biopsies.

A critical evaluation of visual proportion of Gleason 4 and maximum cancer core length quantified by histopathologists.

Gleason score 7 prostate cancer with a higher proportion of pattern 4 (G4) has been linked to genomic heterogeneity and poorer patient outcome. The current assessment of G4 proportion uses estimation by a pathologist, with a higher proportion of G4 more likely to trigger additional imaging and treatment over active surveillance. This estimation method has been shown to have inter-observer variability. Fifteen patients with Prostate Grade Group (GG) 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) and fifteen patients with GG3 (Gleason 4 + 3) disease were selected from the PROMIS study with 192 haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides scanned. Two experienced uropathologists assessed the maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and G4 proportion using the current standard method (visual estimation) followed by detailed digital manual annotation of each G4 area and measurement of MCCL (planimetric estimation) using freely available software by the same two experts. We aimed to compare visual estimation of G4 and MCCL to a pathologist-driven digital measurement. We show that the visual and digital MCCL measurement differs up to 2 mm in 76.6% (23/30) with a high degree of agreement between the two measurements; Visual gave a median MCCL of 10 ± 2.70 mm (IQR 4, range 5-15 mm) compared to digital of 9.88 ± 3.09 mm (IQR 3.82, range 5.01-15.7 mm) (p = 0.64) The visual method for assessing G4 proportion over-estimates in all patients, compared to digital measurements [median 11.2% (IQR 38.75, range 4.7-17.9%) vs 30.4% (IQR 18.37, range 12.9-50.76%)]. The discordance was higher as the amount of G4 increased (Bias 18.71, CI 33.87-48.75, r 0.7, p < 0.0001). Further work on assessing actual G4 burden calibrated to clinical outcomes might lead to the use of differing G4 thresholds of significance if the visual estimation is used or by incorporating semi-automated methods for G4 burden measurement.

Additional Value of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Sequences in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Data from the PROMIS Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is established in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but the need for enhanced sequences has recently been questioned. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) improves accuracy over T2 and diffusion sequences. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROMIS was a multicentre, multireader trial, with, in this part, 497 biopsy-naïve men undergoing standardised 1.5T MP-MRI using T2, diffusion, and DCE, followed by a detailed transperineal prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals. Likert scores of 1-5 for the presence of a significant tumour were assigned in strict sequence, for (1) T2 + diffusion and then (2) T2 + diffusion + dynamic contrast-enhanced images. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For the primary analysis, the primary PROMIS outcome measure (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm maximum cancer length) on TPM was used, and an MRI score of ≥3 was considered positive. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Sensitivity without and with DCE was 94% and 95%, specificity 37% and 38%, positive predictive value 51% and 51%, and negative predictive value 90% and 91%, respectively (p > 0.05 in each case). The number of patients avoiding biopsy (scoring 1-2) was similar (123/497 vs 121/497, p = 0.8). The number of equivocal scores (3/5) was slightly higher without DCE (32% vs 28% p = 0.031). The proportion of MRI equivocal (3/5) and positive (4-5) cases showing significant tumours were similar (23% and 71% vs 20% and 69%). No cases of dominant Gleason 4 or higher were missed with DCE, compared with a single case with T2 + diffusion-weighted imaging. No attempt was made to correlate lesion location on MRI and histology, which may be considered a limitation. Radiologists were aware of the patient's prostate-specific antigen. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast adds little when MP-MRI is used to exclude significant prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: An intravenous injection of contrast may not be necessary when magnetic resonance imaging is used as a test to rule out significant tumours in the prostate.

Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Recent advances have led to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone or with fusion to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Our group sought to develop consensus recommendations regarding MRI-guided prostate biopsy based on currently available literature and expert opinion. METHODS: The published literature on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy was reviewed using standard search terms and synthesized and analyzed by four different subgroups from among the authors. The literature was grouped into four categories-MRI-guided biopsy platforms, robotic MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, template mapping biopsy and transrectal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. Consensus recommendations were developed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS: There is limited high level evidence available on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy. MRI guidance with or without TRUS fusion can lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, help identify high-risk (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) cancers that might have been missed on standard TRUS biopsy and identify cancers in the anterior prostate. There is no apparent significant difference between MRI biopsy platforms. Template mapping biopsy is perhaps the most accurate method of assessing volume and grade of tumor but is accompanied by higher incidence of side effects compared to TRUS biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies are feasible and better than traditional ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting high-risk prostate cancer and anterior lesions. Judicious use of MRI-guided biopsy could enhance diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while limiting diagnosis of insignificant cancer.