Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: 3-year outcomes from a prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological and functional outcomes of focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in treating localised prostate cancer (PCa), a 3-year prospective study was undertaken using periodic post-ablation saturation biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with two or fewer lesions of grade group (GG) ≤3 PCa were eligible for participation. Additional criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤15 ng/mL, clinical T1c-T2, and a life expectancy of ≥10 years. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (FFS), defined as absence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in- or out-of-field on protocol-mandated saturation biopsy, no whole-gland or systemic salvage treatment, PCa metastasis, or PCa-related death. Results are reported using two distinct definitions of csPCa: (i) the presence of any GG ≥2 and (ii) any GG ≥3 or core involvement of ≥6 mm. Secondary endpoints were functional patient-reported outcome measures addressing urinary, sexual, and bowel function. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients were included: six (7%) with GG1 and 85 (93%) with GG ≥2. In all, 83 (91%) underwent at least one follow-up biopsy. Biopsy attendance at 6, 12, and 36 months was 84%, 67%, and 51%, respectively. The FFS at these time points for any GG ≥2 PCa was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80-88%), 57% (95% CI 48-69%) and 44% (95% CI 34-56%), respectively. Using the second definition, FFS were 88% (95% CI 81-95%), 70% (95% CI 61-81%) and 65% (95% CI 55-77%), respectively. The 3-year cancer-specific survival was 100%, and freedom from metastasis was 99%. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (negative predictive value of up to 89%, 95% CI 84-93%) and relative decrease of PSA values (P = 0.4) performed poorly in detecting residual disease. Urinary and bowel assessment returned to baseline questionnaire scores within 3 months. In all, 17 (21%) patients reported meaningful worsening in erectile function. A significant decrease of PCa related anxiety was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU treatment for localised PCa shows excellent functional outcomes with half of the patients remaining cancer-free after 3 years. Whole-gland treatment was avoided in 81%. Early follow-up biopsies are crucial to change or continue the treatment modality at the right time, while the use of MRI and PSA in detecting PCa recurrence is uncertain.

Prediction of pelvic lymph node metastases and PSMA PET positive pelvic lymph nodes with multiparametric MRI and clinical information in primary staging of prostate cancer.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), 68Ga-PSMA PET and the Briganti 2019 nomogram in the prediction of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) in prostate cancer, to assess the accuracy of mpMRI and the Briganti nomogram in prediction of PET positive PLN and to investigate the added value of quantitative mpMRI parameters to the Briganti nomogram. Method: This retrospective IRB-approved study included 41 patients with prostate cancer undergoing mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT or MR prior to prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. A board-certified radiologist assessed the index lesion on diffusion-weighted (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, ADC; mean/volume), T2-weighted (capsular contact length, lesion volume/maximal diameters) and contrast-enhanced (iAUC, kep, Ktrans, ve) sequences. The probability for metastatic pelvic lymph nodes was calculated using the Briganti 2019 nomogram. PET examinations were evaluated by two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians. Results: The Briganti 2019 nomogram performed superiorly (AUC: 0.89) compared to quantitative mpMRI parameters (AUCs: 0.47-0.73) and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET (AUC: 0.82) in the prediction of PLN metastases and superiorly (AUC: 0.77) in the prediction of PSMA PET positive PLN compared to MRI parameters (AUCs: 0.49-0.73). The addition of mean ADC and ADC volume from mpMRI improved the Briganti model by a fraction of new information of 0.21. Conclusions: The Briganti 2019 nomogram performed superiorly in the prediction of metastatic and PSMA PET positive PLN, but the addition of parameters from mpMRI can further improve its accuracy. The combined model could be used to stratify patients requiring ePLND or PSMA PET.

Index lesion contouring on prostate MRI for targeted MRI/US fusion biopsy - Evaluation of mismatch between radiologists and urologists.

PURPOSE: Mistargeting of focal lesions due to inaccurate segmentations can lead to false-negative findings on MRI-guided targeted biopsies. The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine inter-reader agreement of prostate index lesion segmentations from actual biopsy data between urologists and radiologists. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions between January 2020 and December 2021 were included. Agreement between segmentations on T2w-images between urologists and radiologists was assessed with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95 % Hausdorff distance (95 % HD). Differences in similarity scores were compared using Wilcoxon test. Differences depending on lesion features (size, zonal location, PI-RADS scores, lesion distinctness) were tested with Mann-Whitney U test. Correlation with prostate signal-intensity homogeneity score (PSHS) and lesion size was tested with Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (mean age 64.9 ± 7.1y, median serum PSA 6.5 [4.33-10.00]) were included. Mean similarity scores were statistically significantly lower between urologists and radiologists compared to radiologists only (DSC 0.41 ± 0.24 vs. 0.59 ± 0.23, p < 0.01; 95 %HD 6.38 ± 5.45 mm vs. 4.47 ± 4.12 mm, p < 0.01). There was a moderate and strong positive correlation between DSC scores and lesion size for segmentations from urologists and radiologists (ρ = 0.331, p = 0.002) and radiologists only (ρ = 0.501, p < 0.001). Similarity scores were worse in lesions ≤ 10 mm while other lesion features did not significantly influence similarity scores. CONCLUSION: There is significant mismatch of prostate index lesion segmentations between urologists and radiologists. Segmentation agreement positively correlates with lesion size. PI-RADS scores, zonal location, lesion distinctness, and PSHS show no significant impact on segmentation agreement. These findings could underpin benefits of perilesional biopsies.

Multi-reader evaluation of different image quality scoring systems in prostate MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate different image quality scoring systems in the assessment of factors limiting diagnostic accuracy of prostate MRI. METHODS: This retrospective IRB-approved study included 281 patients undergoing prostate MRI prior to biopsy. Four readers (2 experienced, 2 novice) independently reviewed all MRI examinations (n = 295) and assigned scores for subjective image quality (1-5; 1:poor, 5:excellent), the PI-QUAL and the PSHS scoring system. The original PI-RADS scores were extracted from the report and transperineal template saturation biopsy served as histopathological reference. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was found to be good, with PSHS showing highest agreement (kappa: 0.65). The PSHS scoring system performed well assessing the influence of image quality on sensitivity of MR for clinically-significant cancer for the experienced readers using a PI-RADS score cut-off ≥ 3/≥4, as did the PI-QUAL scoring system with a PI-RADS cut-off ≥ 4. For the less experienced radiologist, this was true for PSHS (clinically-significant and all cancers) and PI-QUAL scores (clinically-significant cancers) for a PI-RADS score ≥ 3. PSHS scores were positively associated with the detection of clinically-significant cancer based on a PI-RADS cut-off ≥ 4, OR 1.86 (95 % CI 1.22-2.82), and had the highest Somers' D. CONCLUSIONS: The PSHS scoring system performed well in assessing the effect of image quality on detection rates, as did the PI-QUAL system. Since both systems focus on different aspects of image quality, their incorporation into prostate MRI reports could further enhance standardization and allow for a reliable assessment of image quality as a potential confounder in prostate MRI.

68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI versus multiparametric MRI in men referred for prostate biopsy: primary tumour localization and interreader agreement.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended by the European Urology Association guidelines as the standard modality for imaging-guided biopsy. Recently positron emission tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA PET) has shown promising results as a tool for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of positron emission tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) using the gallium-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA-11) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for pre-biopsy tumour localization and interreader agreement for visual and semiquantitative analysis. Semiquantitative parameters included apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and maximum lesion diameter for mpMRI and standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and PSMA-positive volume (PSMAvol) for PSMA PET/MRI. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity were 61.4% and 92.9% for mpMRI and 66.7% and 92.9% for PSMA PET/MRI for reader one, respectively. RPE was available in 23 patients and 41 of 47 quadrants with discrepant findings. Based on RPE results, the specificity for both imaging modalities increased to 98% and 99%, and the sensitivity improved to 63.9% and 72.1% for mpMRI and PSMA PET/MRI, respectively. Both modalities yielded a substantial interreader agreement for primary tumour localization (mpMRI kappa = 0.65 (0.52-0.79), PSMA PET/MRI kappa = 0.73 (0.61-0.84)). ICC for SUVmax, PSMAvol and lesion diameter were almost perfect (≥ 0.90) while for ADC it was only moderate (ICC = 0.54 (0.04-0.78)). ADC and lesion diameter did not correlate significantly with Gleason score (ρ = 0.26 and ρ = 0.16) while SUVmax and PSMAvol did (ρ = - 0.474 and ρ = - 0.468). CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/MRI has similar accuracy and reliability to mpMRI regarding primary prostate cancer (PCa) localization. In our cohort, semiquantitative parameters from PSMA PET/MRI correlated with tumour grade and were more reliable than the ones from mpMRI.

Abbreviated MR Protocols in Prostate MRI.

Prostate MRI is an integral part of the clinical work-up in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer, and its use has been increasing steadily over the last years. To further its general availability and the number of men benefitting from it and to reduce the costs associated with MR, several approaches have been developed to shorten examination times, e.g., by focusing on sequences that provide the most useful information, employing new technological achievements, or improving the workflow in the MR suite. This review highlights these approaches; discusses their implications, advantages, and disadvantages; and serves as a starting point whenever an abbreviated prostate MRI protocol is being considered for implementation in clinical routine.

Primary staging in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: Multiparametric MRI and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI - What is the value of quantitative data from multiparametric MRI alone or in conjunction with clinical information?

PURPOSE: Comparing mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI in primary staging of PCa and investigating the value of quantitative mpMRI-measurements for prediction of extracapsular extension and N-metastases. METHODS: Patients with PCa undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI and mpMRI during January 2016 to February 2019 were retrospectively included. Two readers each on 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI or mpMRI rated extraprostatic extension (≥T3) and regional lymph-node-metastasis (N1) on a Likert-scale. A fifth reader measured tumor volume, maximum diameter, and capsular contact length on mpMRI. Probability of lymph-node-metastasis was additionally calculated using the 2018 Briganti model. Interobserver-agreement was assessed by squared Cohen's kappa, and diagnostic accuracy was determined using radical prostatectomy (n = 35/49) as reference standard. RESULTS: 49 patients (median age 66 years [IQR: 61-72 years]) were evaluated. Interobserver-agreement for mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI was: ≥T3: κ = 0.58/0.47; N1: κ = 0.55/0.92. Diagnostic accuracy for mpMRI vs 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI readers for ≥ T3 was AUC: 0.72, 0.62 vs 0.71, 0.72 (p > 0.38) and for N1 was AUC: 0.39, 0.55 vs 0.72, 0.78 (p < 0.01). Quantitative parameters delivered diagnostic accuracies of: AUC: 0.70-0.72 for ≥ T3. The 2018 Briganti model achieved an AUC of 0.89 for N1. CONCLUSIONS: Interreader-agreement regarding ≥ T3 was similar for mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI while for N1 it was higher for 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI. Diagnostic accuracy was comparable for ≥ T3 while for N1 it was higher in 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI and the 2018 Briganti model. Combining clinical data and quantitative data from mpMRI in the 2018 Briganti model yielded the highest AUC for prediction of lymph node metastasis and may aid in selecting patients who will benefit from 68Ga-PSMA-PET/MRI for primary staging.

Improving workflow in prostate MRI: AI-based decision-making on biparametric or multiparametric MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate an artificial intelligence algorithm to decide on the necessity of dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (DCE) in prostate MRI. METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and requirement for study-specific informed consent was waived. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was developed on 300 prostate MRI examinations. Consensus of two expert readers on the necessity of DCE acted as reference standard. The CNN was validated in a separate cohort of 100 prostate MRI examinations from the same vendor and 31 examinations from a different vendor. Sensitivity/specificity were calculated using ROC curve analysis and results were compared to decisions made by a radiology technician. RESULTS: The CNN reached a sensitivity of 94.4% and specificity of 68.8% (AUC: 0.88) for the necessity of DCE, correctly assigning 44%/34% of patients to a biparametric/multiparametric protocol. In 2% of all patients, the CNN incorrectly decided on omitting DCE. With a technician reaching a sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 89.1%, the use of the CNN would allow for an increase in sensitivity of 30.5%. The CNN achieved an AUC of 0.73 in a set of examinations from a different vendor. CONCLUSIONS: The CNN would have correctly assigned 78% of patients to a biparametric or multiparametric protocol, with only 2% of all patients requiring re-examination to add DCE sequences. Integrating this CNN in clinical routine could render the requirement for on-table monitoring obsolete by performing contrast-enhanced MRI only when needed.

[PI-RADS 2.1 and structured reporting of magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate]. / PI-RADS 2.1 und strukturierte Befundung der Magnetresonanztomographie der Prostata.

CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE: The detection of clinically significant prostate cancers while simultaneously avoiding over-diagnosing tumors with low malignant potential is a challenge in clinical practice. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in accordance with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines is accepted as standard-of-care with both urologists and radiologists. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: The PI-RADS guidelines have been updated to version 2.1, including revised technical recommendations and changes to the scoring of lesions. PERFORMANCE: The PI-RADS guidelines have had great impact on the standardization of multiparametric prostate MRI and offer templates for structured reporting. This simplifies communication with the referring physician. ACHIEVEMENTS: The new version 2.1 of the guidelines represents an evolutionary improvement of the widely accepted version 2.0. Several aspects of reporting have been revised-however, some pre-known limitations persist, which will require further refinement in the future.

Value of bowel preparation techniques for prostate MRI: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Bowel preparation before multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is performed widely, despite contradictory or no evidence for efficacy. PURPOSE: To investigate the value of hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB), microenema (ME) and 'dietary restrictions' (DR) for artifact reduction and image quality (IQ) in mpMRI of the prostate. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Between 10/2018 and 02/2020 treatment-naïve men (median age, 64.9; range 39.8-87.3) who underwent mpMRI of the prostate were included. The total patient sample comprised of n = 180 patients, who received either HBB, ME, were instructed to adhere to DR, or received a combination of those measures prior to the MR scan. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T2-weighted imaging (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) scanned on two 3T systems. ASSESSMENT: A radiologist specialized in urogenital imaging (R1) and a senior radiology resident (R2) visually assessed IQ parameters on transversal T2w, DWI and ADC maps on a 5-point Likert-like scale. STATISTICAL TESTS: Group comparison between IQ parameters was performed on reader level using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Binary univariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of IQ. Interrater agreement was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: 'DWI geometric distortion' was significantly more pronounced in the HBB+/ME-/DR- (R1, 3.6 and R2, 4.0) as compared to the HBB-/ME+/DR- (R1, 4.2 and R2, 4.6) and HBB+/ME+/DR- (R1, 4.3 and R2, 4.7) cohort, respectively. Parameters 'DWI IQ' and 'Whole MRI IQ' were rated similarly by both readers. ME was a significant independent predictor of 'good IQ' for the whole MRI for R1 [b = 1.09, OR 2.98 (95% CI 1.29, 6.87)] and R2 [b = 1.01, OR 2.73 (95% CI 1.24, 6.04)], respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: ME seems to significantly improve image quality of DWI and the whole mpMRI image set of the prostate. HBB and DR did not have any benefit.

Impact of different phased-array coils on the quality of prostate magnetic resonance images.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of body phased-array (BPA) receive coil setups on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality (IQ) in prostate MRI. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated axial T2-weighted images (T2W-TSE) and DWI of the prostate in ten healthy volunteers with 18-channel (18CH), 30-channel and 60-channel (60CH) BPA receive coil setups. SNR and ADC values were assessed in the peripheral and transition zones (TZ). Two radiologists rated IQ features. Differences in qualitative and quantitative image features between BPA receive coil setups were compared. After correction for multiple comparisons, p-values <0.004 for quantitative and p-values <0.017 for qualitative image analysis were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Significantly higher SNR was found in T2W-TSE images in the TZ using 60CH BPA compared to 18CH BPA coil setups (15.20 ± 4.22 vs. 7.68 ± 2.37; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between all other quantitative (T2W-TSE, p = 0.007-0.308; DWI, p = 0.024-0.574) and qualitative image features (T2W-TSE, p = 0.083-1.0; DWI, p = 0.046-1.0). CONCLUSION: 60CH BPA receive coil setup showed marginal SNR improvement in T2W-TSE images. Good IQ could be achieved with 18CH BPA coil setups.

Value of an online PI-RADS v2.1 score calculator for assessment of prostate MRI.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator (PCalc) compared to MRI reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document (PDoc) for non-specialized radiologists in terms of reporting efficiency, interrater agreement and diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Between 09/2013 and 04/2015, 100 patients (median age, 64.8; range 47.5-78.2) who underwent prostate-MRI at a 3 T scanner and who received transperineal prostate mapping biopsy within <6 months were included in this retrospective study. Two non-specialized radiology residents (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2.1 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion (i) using the original PI-RADS v2.1 document only and after a 6-week interval (ii) using a browser-based PCalc. Reading time was measured. Reading time differences were assessed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Intraclass-correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to assess interrater agreement (IRA). Parameters of diagnostic accuracy and ROC curves were used for assessment of lesion-based diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Cumulative reading time was 32:55 (mm:ss) faster when using the PCalc, the difference being statistically significant for both readers (p < 0.05). The difference in IRA between the image sets (ICC 0.55 [0.40, 0.68]) and 0.75 [0.65, 0.82] for the image set with PDoc and PCalc, respectively) was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in lesion-based diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.83 [0.74, 0.92] and 0.82 [95 %CI: 0.74, 0.91]) for images assessed with PDoc as compared to PCalc (AUC 0.82 [0.74, 0.91] and 0.74 [95 %CI: 0.64, 0.83]) for R1 and R2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-specialized radiologists may increase reading speed in prostate MRI with the help of a browser-based PI-RADS Score Calculator compared to reporting using the official PI-RADS v2.1 document without impairing interreader agreement or lesion-based diagnostic accuracy for detection of clinically significant PCa.

Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI-guided biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer: a prospective single-center study.

PURPOSE: Ultrasound-guided biopsy (US biopsy) with 10-12 cores has a suboptimal sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (sigPCa). If US biopsy is negative, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy is recommended, despite a low specificity for lesions with score 3-5 on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS). Screening and biopsy guidance using an imaging modality with high accuracy could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, reducing side effects. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of positron emission tomography/MRI with 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-PET/MRI) to detect and localize primary sigPCa (ISUP grade group 3 and/or cancer core length ≥ 6 mm) and guide biopsy. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, single-center, non-randomized, diagnostic accuracy study including patients with suspected PCa by elevation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and a suspicious lesion (PIRADS ≥3) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Forty-two patients underwent PSMA-PET/MRI followed by both PSMA-PET/MRI-guided and section-based saturation template biopsy between May 2017 and February 2019. Primary outcome was the accuracy of PSMA-PET/MRI for biopsy guidance using section-based saturation template biopsy as the reference standard. RESULTS: SigPCa was found in 62% of the patients. Patient-based sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value, and accuracy for sigPCa were 96%, 81%, 93%, 89%, and 90%, respectively. One patient had PSMA-negative sigPCa. Eight of nine false-positive lesions corresponded to cancer on prostatectomy and one in six false-negative lesions was negative on prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: PSMA-PET/MRI has a high accuracy for detecting sigPCa and is a promising tool to select patients with suspicion of PCa for biopsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered under the name "Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) Guided Biopsy in Men with Elevated PSA" (NCT03187990) on 06/15/2017 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03187990 ).

Dynamic contrast enhancement in prostate MRI as predictor of erectile function and recovery after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To analyze routine preoperative prostate MRI to predict erectile function (EF) before and after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Patients who underwent RP with an existing preoperative MRI including dynamic contrast-enhanced images and completed International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires at baseline and 12 months postoperative. They were divided into four erectile dysfunction (ED) groups according to preoperative IIEF-5 score. The perfusion quality was measured in the peripheral zone of the prostate by the ratio of signal increase 120 s after wash-in of contrast agent (Ratio120) in preoperative MRI and compared between the ED groups. RESULTS: Ratio120 showed differences among the preoperative ED groups (p = .020) in 97 patients. According to IIEF-5 at 12 months postoperative, 43 patients were dichotomized into "no to mild" (≥17 points) and "moderate to severe" (≤16) ED groups. Ratio120 revealed differences among the postoperative ED groups (128.84% vs. 101.95%; p = .029) and stayed an independent predictor for ED in the multivariable regression analysis (adjusted for age, nerve-sparing and preoperative IIEF-5). ROC curves demonstrated an additional diagnostic benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI of the prostate may be used for the prediction of EF and postsurgical recovery after RP. This may serve as important tool in preoperative patient counseling and management of expectations.

Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

PURPOSE: To assess the value of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system in the detection of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI in comparison to the standard PI-RADS 2.0 system and to assess its inter-reader variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved study included 229 patients undergoing multiparametric prostate MRI prior to MRI-guided TRUS-based biopsy, which were retrospectively recruited from our prospectively maintained institutional database. Two readers with high (reader 1, 6 years) and low (reader 2, 2 years) level of expertise identified the lesion with the highest PI-RADS score for both version 2.0 and 2.1 for each patient. Inter-reader agreement was estimated, and diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement on PI-RADS scores was fair for both version 2.0 (kappa: 0.57) and 2.1 (kappa: 0.51). Detection rates for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) were almost identical for both PI-RADS versions and higher for the more experienced reader (AUC, Reader 1: PCa, 0.881-0.887, csPCa, 0.874-0.879; Reader 2: PCa, 0.765, csPCa, 0.746-0.747; both p > 0.05), both when using a PI-RADS score of ≥ 4 and ≥3 as indicators for positivity for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The new PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system showed comparable diagnostic performance and inter-reader variability compared to version 2.0. The introduced changes in the version 2.1 seem only to take effect in a very small number of patients.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate after focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound.

For clinically significant, locally confined prostate cancer, whole-gland radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are established effective treatment strategies that, however, come at a cost of significant morbidity related to urinary and sexual side effects. The concept of risk stratification paired with a better understanding of prognostic factors has led to the development of alternative management options including active surveillance and focal therapy for appropriately selected patients with localized disease. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is one such minimally invasive, image-guided treatment option for prostate cancer. Due to the relative novelty of HIFU and the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer, many radiologists are not yet familiar with imaging findings related to HIFU, their temporal evolution as well as imaging appearance of recurrent disease after this type of focal therapy. HIFU induces sharply demarcated, localized coagulative necrosis of a tumor through thermal energy delivered via an endorectal or transurethral ultrasound transducer. In this pictorial review, we aim at providing relevant background information that will guide the reader through the general principles of HIFU in the prostate, as well as demonstrate the imaging appearance of expected post-HIFU changes versus recurrent tumor.

Manual prostate cancer segmentation in MRI: interreader agreement and volumetric correlation with transperineal template core needle biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer lesion segmentation on multiparametric MR images (mpMRI). The secondary aim was to compare tumor volume estimates between MRI segmentation and transperineal template saturation core needle biopsy (TTSB). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone mpMRI of the prostate at our institution and who had received TTSB within 190 days of the examination. Seventy-eight cancer lesions with Gleason score of at least 3 + 4 = 7 were manually segmented in T2-weighted images by 3 radiologists and 1 medical student. Twenty lesions were also segmented in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) series. First, 20 volumetric similarity scores were computed to quantify interreader agreement. Second, manually segmented cancer lesion volumes were compared with TTSB-derived estimates by Bland-Altman analysis and Wilcoxon testing. RESULTS: Interreader agreement across all readers was only moderate with mean T2 Dice score of 0.57 (95%CI 0.39-0.70), volumetric similarity coefficient of 0.74 (0.48-0.89), and Hausdorff distance of 5.23 mm (3.17-9.32 mm). Discrepancy of volume estimate between MRI and TTSB was increasing with tumor size. Discrepancy was significantly different between tumors with a Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. higher grade tumors (0.66 ml vs. 0.78 ml; p = 0.007). There were no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentations. CONCLUSIONS: We found at best moderate interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI. Additionally, our study suggests a systematic discrepancy between the tumor volume estimate by MRI segmentation and TTSB core length, especially for large and high-grade tumors. KEY POINTS: • Manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI shows moderate interreader agreement. • There are no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentation agreements. • There is a systematic difference between volume estimates derived from biopsy and MRI.

External Validation and Comparison of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Incorporating Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to externally validate recently published prostate cancer risk calculators incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. We also compared the performance of these calculators to that of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis who underwent transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy with fusion guided targeted biopsy between November 2014 and March 2018 at our academic tertiary referral center. Any Gleason pattern 4 or greater was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Predictors, which were patient age, prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, prostate volume, family history, previous prostate biopsy and the highest region of interest according to the PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), were retrospectively collected. Four multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators and 2 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators were evaluated for discrimination, calibration and the clinical net benefit using ROC analysis, calibration plots and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Of the 468 men 193 (41%) were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer. Three multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators showed similar discrimination with a ROC AUC significantly higher than that of the other prostate cancer risk calculators (AUC 0.83-0.85 vs 0.69-0.74). Calibration in the large showed 2% deviation from the true amount of clinically significant prostate cancer for 2 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging risk calculators while the other calculators showed worse calibration at 11% to 27%. A clinical net benefit was observed only for 3 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging risk calculators at biopsy thresholds of 15% or greater. None of the 6 investigated prostate cancer risk calculators demonstrated clinical usefulness against a biopsy all strategy at thresholds less than 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators varies but they generally outperform multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators in regard to discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness. External validation in other biopsy settings is highly encouraged.

Variability of manual segmentation of the prostate in axial T2-weighted MRI: A multi-reader study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the interreader variability in prostate and seminal vesicle (SV) segmentation on T2w MRI. METHODS: Six readers segmented the peripheral zone (PZ), transitional zone (TZ) and SV slice-wise on axial T2w prostate MRI examinations of n = 80 patients. Twenty different similarity scores, including dice score (DS), Hausdorff distance (HD) and volumetric similarity coefficient (VS), were computed with the VISCERAL EvaluateSegmentation software for all structures combined and separately for the whole gland (WG = PZ + TZ), TZ and SV. Differences between base, midgland and apex were evaluated with DS slice-wise. Descriptive statistics for similarity scores were computed. Wilcoxon testing to evaluate differences of DS, HD and VS was performed. RESULTS: Overall segmentation variability was good with a mean DS of 0.859 (±SD = 0.0542), HD of 36.6 (±34.9 voxels) and VS of 0.926 (±0.065). The WG showed a DS, HD and VS of 0.738 (±0.144), 36.2 (±35.6 vx) and 0.853 (±0.143), respectively. The TZ showed generally lower variability with a DS of 0.738 (±0.144), HD of 24.8 (±16 vx) and VS of 0.908 (±0.126). The lowest variability was found for the SV with DS of 0.884 (±0.0407), HD of 17 (±10.9 vx) and VS of 0.936 (±0.0509). We found a markedly lower DS of the segmentations in the apex (0.85 ±â€¯0.12) compared to the base (0.87 ±â€¯0.10, p < 0.01) and the midgland (0.89 ±â€¯0.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We report baseline values for interreader variability of prostate and SV segmentation on T2w MRI. Variability was highest in the apex, lower in the base, and lowest in the midgland.