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.

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.

Can Artificial Intelligence Accurately Detect Urinary Stones? A Systematic Review.

Objectives: To perform a systematic review on artificial intelligence (AI) performances to detect urinary stones. Methods: A PROSPERO-registered (CRD473152) systematic search of Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases was performed to identify original research articles pertaining to AI stone detection or measurement, using search terms ("automatic" OR "machine learning" OR "convolutional neural network" OR "artificial intelligence" OR "detection" AND "stone volume"). Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was performed according to the Cochrane RoB tool, the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for nonrandomized studies, and the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Results: Twelve studies were selected for the final review, including three multicenter and nine single-center retrospective studies. Eleven studies completed at least 50% of the CLAIM checkpoints and only one presented a high RoB. All included studies aimed to detect kidney (5/12, 42%), ureter (2/12, 16%), or urinary (5/12, 42%) stones on noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT), but 42% intended to automate measurement. Stone distinction from vascular calcification interested two studies. All studies used AI machine learning network training and internal validation, but a single one provided an external validation. Trained networks achieved stone detection, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates ranging from 58.7% to 100%, 68.5% to 100%, and 63% to 99.95%, respectively. Detection Dice score ranged from 83% to 97%. A high correlation between manual and automated stone volume (r = 0.95) was noted. Differentiate distal ureteral stones and phleboliths seemed feasible. Conclusions: AI processes can achieve automated urinary stone detection from NCCT. Further studies should provide urinary stone detection coupled with phlebolith distinction and an external validation, and include anatomical abnormalities and urologic foreign bodies (ureteral stent and nephrostomy tubes) cases.

PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. METHODS: A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.

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.

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.

Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB): A Proposal for a Scoring System for Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate After Focal Therapy.

At present there is no standardised system for scoring the appearance of the prostate on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after focal ablation for localised prostate cancer. We propose a novel scoring system, the Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) score, to fill this gap. PI-FAB involves a 3-point scale for rating MRI sequences in sequential order: (1) dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences; (2) diffusion-weighted imaging, split into assessment of the high-b-value sequence first and then the apparent diffusion coefficient map; and (3) T2-weighted imaging. It is essential that the pretreatment scan is also available to help with this assessment. We designed PI-FAB using our experience of reading postablation scans over the past 15 years and include details for four representative patients initially treated with high-intensity focus ultrasound at our institution to demonstrate the scoring system. We propose PI-FAB as a standardised method for evaluating prostate MRI scans after treatment with focal ablation. The next step is to evaluate its performance across multiple experienced readers of MRI after focal therapy in a clinical data set. PATIENT SUMMARY: We propose a scoring system called PI-FAB for assessing the appearance of magnetic resonance imaging scans of the prostate after focal treatment for localised prostate cancer. This will help clinicians in deciding on further follow-up.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Follow-up of Targeted Biopsy-negative Prostate Lesions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal radiological follow-up of prostate lesions negative on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) is yet to be optimised. OBJECTIVE: To present medium-term radiological and clinical follow-up of biopsy-negative lesions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The records for men who underwent multiparametric MRI at the UCLH one-stop clinic for suspected prostate cancer between September 2017 and March 2020 were reviewed (n = 1199). Patients with Likert 4 or 5 lesions were considered (n = 495), and those with a subsequent negative MRI-TB comprised the final study population (n = 91). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Baseline and follow-up MRI and biopsy data (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostate volume, radiological scores, and presence of any noncancerous pathology) were extracted from reports. The last follow-up date was the date of the last test or review in clinic. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 1.8 yr (656 d, interquartile range [IQR] 359-1008). At baseline, the median age was 65.4 yr (IQR 60.7-70.0), median PSA was 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 4.7-10.0), median prostate volume was 54 ml (IQR 39.5-75.0), and median PSA density (PSAD) was 0.13 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.09-0.18). Eighty-six men (95%) had Likert 4 lesions, while the remaining five (5%) had Likert 5 lesions. Only 21 men (23%) had a single lesion; most had at least two. Atrophy was the most prevalent pathology on MRI-TB, present in 64 men (74%), and followed by acute inflammation in 42 (46%), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in 33 (36%), chronic inflammation in 18 (20%), atypia in 13 (14%), and granulomatous inflammation in three (3%). Fifty-eight men had a second MRI study (median 376 d, IQR 361-412). At the second MRI, median PSAD decreased to 0.11 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.08-0.18). A Likert 4 or 5 score persisted only in five men (9%); 40 men (69%) were scored Likert 3, while the remaining 13 (22%) were scored Likert 2 (no lesion). Of 45 men with a Likert ≥3 score, most only had one lesion at the second MRI (28 men; 62%). Of six men with repeat MRI-TB during the study period, two were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer and both had persistent Likert 4 scores (at baseline and at least one follow-up MRI). CONCLUSIONS: Most biopsy-negative MRI lesions in the prostate resolve over time, but any persistent lesions should be closely monitored. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lesions in the prostate detected via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans that are negative for cancer on biopsy usually resolve. Repeat MRI can indicate persistent lesions that might need a second biopsy.

Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach. METHODS: Prostate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04571840.

A semi-automated software program to assess the impact of second reads in prostate MRI for equivocal lesions: results from a UK tertiary referral centre.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) second read using a semi-automated software program in the one-stop clinic, where patients undergo multiparametric MRI, review and biopsy planning in one visit. We looked at concordance between readers for patients with equivocal scans and the possibility for biopsy deferral in this group. METHODS: We present data from 664 consecutive patients. Scans were reported by seven different expert genitourinary radiologists using dedicated software (MIM®) and a Likert scale. All scans were rescored by another expert genitourinary radiologist using a customised workflow for second reads that includes annotated biopsy contours for accurate visual targeting. The number of scans in which a biopsy could have been deferred using biopsy results and prostate specific antigen density was assessed. Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 was considered clinically significant disease. Concordance between first and second reads for equivocal scans (Likert 3) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 209/664 (31%) patients scored Likert 3 on first read, 128 of which (61%) were concordant after second read. 103/209 (49%) of patients with Likert 3 scans were biopsied, with clinically significant disease in 31 (30%) cases. Considering Likert 3 scans that were both downgraded and biopsied using the workflow-generated biopsy contours, 25/103 (24%) biopsies could have been deferred. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a semi-automated workflow for accurate lesion contouring and targeting biopsies is helpful during the one-stop clinic. We observed a reduction of indeterminate scans after second reading and almost a quarter of biopsies could have been deferred, reducing the potential biopsy-related side effects.

Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Rendezvous Procedures to Treat Complex Ureteric Strictures and Injuries.

Background: Complex ureteric strictures and injuries occurring during major abdominal and pelvic operations may cause significant morbidity and distress to patients. A rendezvous procedure is an endoscopic technique used in case of such injuries. Objective: To evaluate perioperative and long-term outcomes of rendezvous procedures to treat complex ureteric strictures and injuries. Design setting and participants: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing a rendezvous procedure for ureteric discontinuity including strictures and injuries, treated between 2003 and 2017 at our Institution and completing at least 12 mo of follow-up. We divided patients into two groups: early postsurgical obstruction, leakage, or detachment (group A) and late strictures (oncological/postsurgical; group B). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: If appropriate, we performed a retrograde study ± rigid ureteroscopy to assess the stricture 3 mo after the rendezvous procedure, followed by a MAG3 renogram at 6 wk, 6 mo, and 12 mo, and annually thereafter for 5 yr. Results and limitations: Forty-three patients underwent a rendezvous procedure, 17 in group A (median age 50 yr, range 30-78) and 26 in group B (median age 60 yr, range: 28-83). Ureteric strictures and ureteric discontinuities were stented successfully in 15 out of 17 patients in group A (88.2%) and 22 out of 26 patients (84.6%) in group B. For both groups, the median follow-up was 6 yr. In group A, of 17 patients, 11 (64.7%) were stent free with no further interventions, two (11.7%) had a subsequent Memokath stent insertion (38%), and two (11.7%) required reconstruction. Of 26 patients in group B, eight (30.7%) required no further interventions and were stent free, ten (38.4%) were maintained with long-term stenting, and one was managed with a Memokath stent (3.8%). Of the 26 patients, only three (11.5%) required major reconstruction, while four patients with malignancy (15%) died during follow-up. Conclusions: With a combined antegrade and retrograde approach, the majority of complex ureteric strictures/injuries can be bridged and stented with an overall immediate technical success rate of above 80%, avoiding major surgery in unfavourable circumstances and allowing time for stabilisation and recovery of the patient. Additionally, in case of technical success, further interventions may be unnecessary in up to 64% of patients with acute injury and about 31% of patients with late stricture. Patient summary: The majority of complex ureteric strictures and injuries can be resolved using a rendezvous approach, avoiding major surgery in unfavourable circumstances. Moreover, this approach can help avoid further interventions in 64% of such patients.

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.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

Promoting the use of the PRECISE score for prostate MRI during active surveillance: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE criteria for serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate during active surveillance recommend the use of a dedicated scoring system (PRECISE score) to assess the likelihood of clinically significant radiological change. This pilot study assesses the effect of an interactive teaching course on prostate MRI during active surveillance in assessing radiological change in serial imaging. METHODS: Eleven radiology fellows and registrars with different experience in prostate MRI reading participated in a dedicated teaching course where they initially evaluated radiological change (based on their previous training in prostate MRI reading) independently in fifteen patients on active surveillance (baseline and follow-up scan), and then attended a lecture on the PRECISE score. The initial scans were reviewed for teaching purposes and afterwards the participants re-assessed the degree of radiological change in a new set of images (from fifteen different patients) applying the PRECISE score. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. Confirmatory biopsies and PRECISE scores given in consensus by two radiologists (involved in the original draft of the PRECISE score) were the reference standard. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the average area under the curve (AUC) for the assessment of radiological change from baseline (AUC: 0.60 [Confidence Intervals: 0.51-0.69] to post-teaching (AUC: 0.77 [0.70-0.84]). This was an improvement of 0.17 [0.016-0.28] (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated teaching course on the use of the PRECISE score improves the accuracy in the assessment of radiological change in serial MRI of the prostate.

NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single-blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. METHODS: NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. DISCUSSION: NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

Negative mpMRI Rules Out Extra-Prostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer before Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Background: The accuracy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in the pre-operative staging of prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to accurately predict PCa extra-prostatic extension (EPE) on a side-specific basis using a risk-stratified 5-point Likert scale. This study also aimed to assess the influence of mpMRI scan quality on diagnostic accuracy. Patients and Methods: We included 124 men who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP) as part of the NeuroSAFE PROOF study at our centre. Three radiologists retrospectively reviewed mpMRI blinded to RP pathology and assigned a Likert score (1-5) for EPE on each side of the prostate. Each scan was also ascribed a Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score for assessing the quality of the mpMRI scan, where 1 represents the poorest and 5 represents the best diagnostic quality. Outcome measurements and statistical analyses: Diagnostic performance is presented for the binary classification of EPE, including 95% confidence intervals and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 231 lobes from 121 men (mean age 56.9 years) were evaluated. Of these, 39 men (32.2%), or 43 lobes (18.6%), had EPE. A Likert score ≥3 had a sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), NPV, and PPV of 90.4%, 52.3%, 96%, and 29.9%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.86). The AUC was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.88), 0.78 (0.72-0.84), and 0.92 (0.88-0.96) for biparametric scans, PI-QUAL 1-3, and PI-QUAL 4-5 scans, respectively. Conclusions: MRI can be used effectively by genitourinary radiologists to rule out EPE and help inform surgical planning for men undergoing RARP. EPE prediction was more reliable when the MRI scan was (a) multi-parametric and (b) of a higher image quality according to the PI-QUAL scoring system.

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.