Multiparametric MRI and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is effective for detecting prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is a high rate of equivocal Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions and false-positive findings. Purpose To investigate whether fluorine 18 (18F) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) 1007 PET/CT after mpMRI can help detect localized clinically significant PCa (csPCa), particularly for equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions. Materials and Methods This prospective study included participants with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels referred for prostate mpMRI between September 2020 and February 2022. 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was performed within 30 days of mpMRI and before biopsy. PI-RADS category and level of suspicion (LOS) were assessed. PI-RADS 3 or higher lesions at mpMRI and/or LOS 3 or higher lesions at 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT underwent targeted biopsies. PI-RADS 2 or lower and LOS 2 or lower lesions were considered nonsuspicious and were monitored during a 1-year follow-up by means of PSA testing. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed, with histologic examination serving as the reference standard. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher was considered csPCa. Results Seventy-five participants (median age, 67 years [range, 52-77 years]) were assessed, with PI-RADS 1 or 2, PI-RADS 3, and PI-RADS 4 or 5 groups each including 25 participants. A total of 102 lesions were identified, of which 80 were PI-RADS 3 or higher and/or LOS 3 or higher and therefore underwent targeted biopsy. The per-participant sensitivity for the detection of csPCa was 95% and 91% for mpMRI and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, respectively, with respective specificities of 45% and 62%. 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was used to correctly differentiate 17 of 26 PI-RADS 3 lesions (65%), with a negative and positive predictive value of 93% and 27%, respectively, for ruling out or detecting csPCa. One additional significant and one insignificant PCa lesion (PI-RADS 1 or 2) were found at 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT that otherwise would have remained undetected. Two participants had ISUP 2 tumors without PSMA uptake that were missed at PET/CT. Conclusion 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed good sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of csPCa and ruled this out in 93% of participants with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04487847 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Turkbey in this issue.

Implications of the European Association of Urology Recommended Risk Assessment Algorithm for Early Prostate Cancer Detection.

The 2021 European Association of Urology recommendations for early prostate cancer detection included a risk-based algorithm. Risk assessment methods are proposed to prevent excessive use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy, simultaneously reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, the clinical implications of sequential use of risk assessment tests have not yet been properly assessed. We provide an appraisal of the recommended algorithm and evaluate its outcomes in a contemporary prospective study population of biopsy-naïve men. To increase the effectiveness in cases of limited MRI capacity, we show that use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator-3 for pre-MRI risk stratification could avoid more than one-third of MRI examinations. After prostate MRI, use of either the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score or a risk model including MRI outcome as a variable could avoid six out of ten prostate biopsies while maintaining high sensitivity. However, implementation in health care systems requires due consideration of the access to and quality of diagnostic resources, as well as cost-effectiveness. Patient summary: We evaluated the European Association of Urology risk-based strategy for early prostate cancer detection. Risk assessment before magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using a risk calculator or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density could reduce MRI demands and overdiagnosis of insignificant cancers. Risk assessment using prostate MRI results could avoid 60% of prostate biopsies while maintaining prostate cancer detection rates.The European Association of Urology (EAU) recently published its current position and recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing [1]. On the basis of the literature and expert opinion, a risk-based algorithm for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was proposed. The guideline recommends stratifying men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml as either "low risk", for whom magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be avoided, or "intermediate and high risk", for whom prostate MRI should be performed as a basis for further diagnostic decisions. Strategies must be developed to use health care resources efficiently and to reduce unnecessary morbidity, anxiety, and costs of diagnostics. However, any paradigm shift inevitably leads to a paucity of research data. As a result, there is still debate regarding which men can safely avoid an initial MRI but are subjected to clinical follow-up, and which men must undergo an immediate MRI. The authors proposed four methods for risk assessment: (1) family history; (2) PSA velocity; (3) PSA density; and (4) risk calculators. It must be stressed that the availability and quality of prostate MRI in each situation should be considered when using these pre-MRI risk assessment tools. We discuss in brief the proposed risk assessment methods including MRI and assess potential outcomes in a contemporary population.

Validation of In Vivo Nodal Assessment of Solid Malignancies with USPIO-Enhanced MRI: A Workflow Protocol.

BACKGROUND: In various cancer types, the first step towards extended metastatic disease is the presence of lymph node metastases. Imaging methods with sufficient diagnostic accuracy are required to personalize treatment. Lymph node metastases can be detected with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but this method needs validation. Here, a workflow is presented, which is designed to compare MRI-visible lymph nodes on a node-to-node basis with histopathology. METHODS: In patients with prostate, rectal, periampullary, esophageal, and head-and-neck cancer, in vivo USPIO-enhanced MRI was performed to detect lymph nodes suspicious of harboring metastases. After lymphadenectomy, but before histopathological assessment, a 7 Tesla preclinical ex vivo MRI of the surgical specimen was performed, and in vivo MR images were radiologically matched to ex vivo MR images. Lymph nodes were annotated on the ex vivo MRI for an MR-guided pathological examination of the specimens. RESULTS: Matching lymph nodes of ex vivo MRI to pathology was feasible in all cancer types. The annotated ex vivo MR images enabled a comparison between USPIO-enhanced in vivo MRI and histopathology, which allowed for analyses on a nodal, or at least on a nodal station, basis. CONCLUSIONS: A workflow was developed to validate in vivo USPIO-enhanced MRI with histopathology. Guiding the pathologist towards lymph nodes in the resection specimens during histopathological work-up allowed for the analysis at a nodal basis, or at least nodal station basis, of in vivo suspicious lymph nodes with corresponding histopathology, providing direct information for validation of in vivo USPIO-enhanced, MRI-detected lymph nodes.

Ferumoxtran-10-enhanced 3-T Magnetic Resonance Angiography of Pelvic Arteries: Initial Experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal impairment cannot undergo angiography because iodine and gadolinium contrast agents are contraindicated. Iron-containing ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles, such as ferumoxtran-10, are not contraindicated in these patients. Thus, patients with renal failure can still undergo angiography with ferumoxtran-10. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the visibility of pelvic vessels with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) using ferumoxtran-10 as contrast agent. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and eighty-one patients diagnosed with primary or recurrent prostate cancer underwent pelvic ferumoxtran-10 MRA. Eleven anatomical pelvic-vessel segments per patient were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative criteria for image quality (IQ), vessel visibility (VV), and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). INTERVENTION: Ferumoxtran-10-enhaced MRA. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: IQ, VV, and CNR were assessed on a 5-point scale for each data set/vessel segment (very poor, poor, moderate, good, and excellent). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: IQ was good to excellent for 98.2% of the data sets and VV was good to excellent for 97.7% of all vessel segments. The mean CNR for all segments was 88.13 (standard deviation 4.22). Contrast bolus imaging cannot be performed with this technique, so it is impossible to visualize the arterial or venous phase separately. The timing of contrast administration is also a limitation, with MRA performed 1 d after contrast infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Ferumoxtran-10 MRA showed excellent image quality and visibility for pelvic vessels. In addition, the homogeneity of the intraluminal contrast was superior. Patients with preterminal or terminal renal function can benefit from ferumoxtran-10 MRA if visualization of their pelvic vessels is required. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging of blood vessels using a contrast agent called ferumoxtran-10 is a promising technique for patients with impaired kidney function, as it provides high-quality visualization of blood vessels in the pelvis.

Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI-directed biopsy (TR-MRDB) and transperineal (TP)-MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed a two-centre cohort of consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) compliant pre-biopsy MRI in a single, high-volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR-MRDB in Centre 1 and TP-MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy-avoidance due to non-suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy-related complications between TR- and TP-MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI-RADS category. RESULTS: Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR- and TP-MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of -5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI -2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR-MRDB (0.50%) and TP-MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.87% to 1.1%). CONCLUSION: This high-volume, two-centre study shows pre-biopsy MRI as a decision tool is implementable in daily clinical practice. Compared to recent trials, a substantially higher biopsy avoidance rate was achieved without compromising GG ≥2/GG ≥3 detection and coinciding with lower over detection rates of GG 1 cancer. Prostate cancer detection and complication rates were comparable for TR- and TP-MRDB.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 4: Transperineal Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy Using Local Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy (MFGB) is an increasingly popular technique due to increasing rates of biopsy-related infections. However, its widespread implementation has been hampered by the supposed necessity of epidural or general anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the technique, feasibility, and results of transperineal MFGB under local anesthesia, in an ambulatory setting without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-center study enrolled consecutive biopsy-naïve men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer into a prospective database between November 2015 and November 2020. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores 3-5 underwent transperineal MFGB. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Transperineal MFGB was performed in an ambulatory setting under local anesthesia by a single operator. MEASUREMENTS: Procedure-associated adverse events were recorded. Patient discomfort during both the local anesthesia and the biopsy procedure was determined using a visual analogic scale (0-10). Detection rates of grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer and the proportion of men with GG 1 cancer were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1097 eligible men underwent transperineal MFGB. The complication rate was 0.73% (8/1097); complications comprised five (0.46%) urinary tract infections including one hospitalization and three (0.27%) urinary retentions. In 735 men, the median pain scores were 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-3) for the local anesthesia procedure and 1 (IQR 0-2) for the biopsy. Prostate cancer was detected in 84% (926/1097) of men; 66% (723/1097) had GG ≥2 and 19% (203/1097) GG 1. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal MFGB can safely be performed as an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia in an ambulatory setting. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer is high, and biopsy is well tolerated. Although no antibiotic prophylaxis was used, the rate of infectious complications is practicably negligible. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article shows how tissue samples (biopsies) can accurately be obtained from suspicious regions seen on prostate magnetic resonance imaging via needles inserted in the perineum (skin between the scrotum and the anus) in men with suspected prostate cancer. This technique appears to be very well tolerated under local anesthesia and has a lower risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis than the more common biopsy route through the rectum, with antibiotics.

Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of "unnecessary" prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy. METHODS: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥-2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility. RESULTS: Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%. CONCLUSIONS: SelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.

External validation of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Briganti nomograms for the prediction of lymph node involvement of prostate cancer using clinical stage assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. CONCLUSION: T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms.

Head-to-Head Comparison of 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT and Ferumoxtran-10-Enhanced MRI for the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer Patients.

Accurate assessment of lymph node (LN) metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) patients is critical for prognosis and patient management. Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT and ferumoxtran-10 nanoparticle-enhanced MRI (nano-MRI) are imaging modalities with high potential to identify LN metastases in PCa patients. The aim of this study was to compare the results of these imaging technologies in terms of characteristics and anatomic localization of suspicious LNs in order to assess the feasibility of their complementary use for imaging in PCa patients. Methods: In total, 45 patients with either primary PCa (n = 8) or recurrence (n = 36) were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent both 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI between October 2015 and July 2017 within 3 wk. Both scans were performed at the same institution according to local clinical protocols. All scans were analyzed independently by experienced nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists. The size, anatomic location, and level of suspicion were determined for all visible LNs. Subsequently, the findings from 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI were compared without respect to a reference standard. Results: In total, 179 suspicious LNs were identified. Significantly more suspicious LNs per patient were detected by nano-MRI (P < 0.001): 160 were identified in 33 patients by nano-MRI, versus 71 in 25 patients by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Of all suspicious LNs, 108 were identified only by nano-MRI (60%), 19 (11%) only by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and 52 (29%) by both methods. The mean size of the suspicious LNs as identified by nano-MRI was significantly smaller (5.3 mm) than that by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (6.0 mm; P = 0.006). The median level of suspicion did not differ significantly. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all anatomic regions of the pelvis. Conclusion: Both modalities identified suspicious LNs that were missed by the other. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all anatomic regions of the pelvis; however, nano-MRI appeared to be superior in detecting smaller suspicious LNs. These findings suggest that nano-MRI has a potential role as a complement to PSMA PET/CT. However, since the clinical implications of the different results are not well established yet, further investigation of this complementary use is encouraged.

Evaluating F-18-PSMA-1007-PET in primary prostate cancer and comparing it to multi-parametric MRI and histopathology.

BACKGROUND: PSMA-PET is a novel imaging modality for the staging of prostate cancer (PCa). While there are several PSMA ligands available, F-18-PSMA-1007 is particularly of interest as it is not renally excreted and therefore does not impair the imaging of the pelvic area. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the F-18-PSMA-1007-PET for the primary staging of PCa and compared it to multi-parametric (mp) MRI and histopathology. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of men with intermediate and high-risk PCa patients that underwent a F-18-PSMA-1007-PET after mpMRI with subsequent MR-guided target biopsy (MRGB). Suspicious mpMRI lesions and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET were simultaneously reviewed on both a per patient and per-lesion basis. Results were subsequently evaluated with histopathological outcome of MRGB, and if performed, the radical prostatectomy specimen. RESULTS: A total of 66 suspicious mpMRI lesions were identified in 53 patients and underwent MRGB. Two lesions had a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) less than the mean SUVmax of healthy prostate tissue and were considered as non-PSMA-expressing. All PSMA avid tumors had higher SUVmax than the mean SUVmean of the bladder/urine, therefore all lesions were clearly distinguishable in the pelvic area. Twenty-three patients received a radical prostatectomy of which the histopathology specimens were evaluated. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT correctly staged seminal vesicle invasion (i.e. pT3b) more often than mpMRI (90 vs. 76%), whereas mpMRI more accurately detected extracapsular extension (i.e. pT3a) compared to F-18-PSMA-1007-PET (90% vs 57%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study of a selected cohort suggest that dual imaging with mpMRI and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET may improve staging of primary PCa. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT had low renal clearance, which could assist the evaluation of tumors in proximity of the bladder.

ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition.

BACKGROUND: Acquiring multiparametric magnetic resonance images of the prostate is not a simple "push-button" approach. OBJECTIVE: To show how image acquisition of prostate multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) can be optimized. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Image protocols, magnetic field strength choice, and the use of receiver coils are discussed. In addition, patient preparation and the recognition, prevention, and mitigation of artifacts are evaluated. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Based on expert prostate MRI technologists (MRI radiographers) opinion, the optimal protocol is reviewed, and potential artifacts are determined. MEASUREMENTS: The entire acquisition process is presented from initial patient preparation until the end of the imaging. The choice of the used equipment, pulse sequences, and prevention of patient- and imaging-related artifacts are presented. This will be shown in individual patients. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Although the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System guidelines (2012 and 2016) describe minimal and optimal acquisition protocols for prostate mpMRI, these standards are not always met in daily practice. A major challenge in mpMRI is to obtain high image quality and reduce its variability for radiologic interpretations. A summary of evidence and guidelines for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate can set a basic guideline to reduce these variabilities. CONCLUSIONS: This article and an accompanying video can be used as a guide by MRI technologists (MRI radiographers) to improve their image acquisitions by optimizing protocols, magnetic field strength choice, and use of receiver coils. We also discuss patient preparation and the recognition, prevention, and mitigation of artifacts. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this first surgery-in-motion contribution, we will show how optimized image acquisition is performed to detect prostate cancer. Both MRI-dependent and patient related factors are discussed.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 2: Interpretation.

BACKGROUND: There is large variability among radiologists in their detection of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). OBJECTIVE: To reduce the interpretation variability and achieve optimal accuracy in assessing prostate mpMRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: How the interpretation of mpMRI can be optimized is demonstrated here. Whereas part 1 of the "surgery-in-motion" paper focused on acquisition, this paper shows the correlation between (ab)normal prostate anatomical structures and image characteristics on mpMRI, and how standardized interpretation according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) should be performed. This will be shown in individual patients. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: To detect csPCa, three mpMRI "components" are used: "anatomic" T2-weighted imaging, "cellular-density" diffusion-weighted imaging, and "vascularity" dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. MEASUREMENTS: Based on PI-RADS v2, the accompanying video shows how mpMRI interpretation is performed. Finally, the role of mpMRI in detecting csPCa is briefly discussed and the main features of the recently introduced PI-RADS v2.1 are evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With PI-RADS v2, it is possible to quantify normal and abnormal anatomical structures within the prostate based on its imaging features of the three mpMRI "components." With this knowledge, a more objective evaluation of the presence of a csPCa can be performed. However, there still remains quite some space to reduce interobserver variability. CONCLUSIONS: For understanding the interpretation of mpMRI according to PI-RADS v2, knowledge of the correlation between imaging and (ab)normal anatomical structures on the three mpMRI components is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: This second surgery-in-motion contribution shows what structures can be recognized on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). How a radiologist performs his reading according to the so-called Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria is shown here. The main features of these criteria are summarized, and the role of prostate MRI in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer is discussed briefly.

High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility.

BACKGROUND: To make magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) more accessible to men at risk of high-grade prostate cancer (PCa), there is a need for quicker, simpler, and less costly MRI protocols. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of monoplanar ("fast" biparametric MRI [bp-MRI]) and triplanar noncontrast bp-MRI with that of the current contrast-enhanced multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) in the detection of high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, multireader, head-to-head study included 626 biopsy-naïve men, between February 2015 and February 2018. INTERVENTION: Men underwent prebiopsy contrast-enhanced mp-MRI. Prior to biopsy, two blinded expert readers subsequently assessed "fast" bp-MRI, bp-MRI, and mp-MRI. Thereafter, systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (SBs) were performed. Men with suspicious mp-MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3-5 lesions) also underwent MR-in-bore biopsy (MRGB). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of each protocol for the detection of high-grade PCa. Secondary outcomes included the difference in biopsy avoidance, detection of low-grade PCa, acquisition times, decision curve analyses, inter-reader agreement, and direct costs. Results from combined MRGB and SB were used as the reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as grade ≥2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Sensitivity for high-grade PCa for all protocols was 95% (180/190; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 91-97%). Specificity was 65% (285/436; 95% CI: 61-70%) for "fast" bp-MRI and 69% (299/436; 95% CI: 64-73%) for bp-MRI and mp-MRI. With fast bp-MRI, 0.96% (6/626) more low-grade PCa was detected. Biopsy could be avoided in 47% for the fast bp-MRI and in 49% for the bp-MRI and mp-MRI protocols. Fast bp-MRI and bp-MRI can be performed in 8 and 13min, respectively, instead of 16min at lower direct costs. Inter-reader agreement was 90% for fast bp-MRI protocol and 93% for bp-MRI protocol. A main limitation is the generalizability of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: Short MRI protocols can improve prostate MRI accessibility at a lower direct cost. For fast bp-MRI, this is at the cost of ∼2% more biopsies and ∼1% more overdetection of low-grade PCa. In order to implement this technique in nonexpert, low-volume, lower-field-strength scanners, further prospective studies have to be performed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared the value of three different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols for the detection of prostate cancer in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Our results show that, when used in expert centers, shorter MRI protocols do not compromise the detection of harmful disease. This increases MRI capacity at lower direct costs.

Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.