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.

The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.

Prostate MRI and image quality: The urologist's perspective.

The development of different imaging modalities of the prostate has significantly improved tumor detection, patient risk stratification, and quality of care.Among these, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has emerged as the most sensitive tool.It is useful in the diagnosis, localization, risk stratification, and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer, PCa. As a result, mp-MRI of the prostate is recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men with suspected PCa. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer and mp-MRI plays a fundamental role in this scenario.While many aspects of image quality certainly fall within the purview of radiology, it is important to recognize that urologists must also be attentive to imaging quality when utilizing mp-MRI to facilitate PCa management. We present our viewpoint as urologists on how image quality impacts the management of men diagnosed with PCa andattempt to identify the factors that impact mp-MRI image quality, consequences of poor image quality, and finally suggestions for improvements.

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.

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.

Self-Perception of HIV Risk and Interest in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in a General Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic Population.

Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV is underutilized, particularly among attendees of obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) clinics. Lack of self-perception of HIV risk is a barrier to PrEP utilization, and a lack of understanding of community risk factors for HIV may contribute to that lack of self-perception of risk. Methods: Attendees of general Ob/Gyn clinics in New Orleans completed a survey assessing HIV knowledge, self-perception of HIV risk, and interest in PrEP. They reviewed a brief written educational intervention on demographic and behavioral risk factors for HIV and availability of PrEP. HIV knowledge, self-perception of HIV risk, and interest in PrEP were reassessed after the intervention. Results: One-hundred seventy individuals completed the survey. Eighty-five participants (50%) expressed initial interest in PrEP. Self-perception of risk of HIV acquisition was associated with interest in PrEP. Ten of 11 (90.9%) respondents who had high self-perceived risk of HIV were interested in PrEP, compared with 75 of 159 (47.2%) of those who had low self-perceived risk (p = 0.01). The association remained significant in a multivariate analysis. After the intervention, the number of those who perceived themselves to be at risk of HIV increased from 11 to 25 individuals (p < 0.01) and 20 of these (80%) were interested in PrEP. Knowledge of HIV risk factors increased (p < 0.01). The intervention did not significantly alter interest in PrEP. Conclusions: Self-perception of HIV risk was associated with interest in PrEP. A brief written educational intervention increased knowledge of HIV risk factors and increased self-perception of risk of HIV. The intervention did not translate to increased interest in PrEP.

Prostate MR image quality of apparent diffusion coefficient maps versus fractional intracellular volume maps from VERDICT MRI using the PI-QUAL score and a dedicated Likert scale for artefacts.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the image quality of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps derived from conventional diffusion-weighted MRI and fractional intracellular volume maps (FIC) from VERDICT MRI (Vascular, Extracellular, Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumours) in patients from the INNOVATE trial. The inter-reader agreement was also assessed. METHODS: Two readers analysed both ADC and FIC maps from 57 patients enrolled in the INNOVATE prospective trial. Image quality was assessed using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and a subjective image quality Likert score (Likert-IQ). The image quality of FIC and ADC were compared using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. The inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the PI-QUAL score for FIC datasets compared to ADC datasets for either reader (p = 0.240 and p = 0.614). Using the Likert-IQ score, FIC image quality was higher compared to ADC (p = 0.021) as assessed by reader-1 but not for reader-2 (p = 0.663). The inter-reader agreement was 'fair' for PI-QUAL scoring of datasets with FIC maps at 0.27 (95% confidence interval; 0.08-0.46) and ADC datasets at 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.22-0.57). For Likert scoring, the inter-reader agreement was also 'fair' for FIC maps at 0.38 (95% confidence interval; 0.10-0.65) and substantial for ADC maps at 0.62 (95% confidence interval; 0.39-0.86). CONCLUSION: Image quality was comparable for FIC and ADC. The inter-reader agreement was similar when using PIQUAL for both FIC and ADC datasets but higher for ADC maps compared to FIC maps using the image quality Likert score.

Focal therapy versus radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy as primary treatment options for non-metastatic prostate cancer: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: Focal therapy treats individual areas of tumour in non-metastatic prostate cancer in patients unsuitable for active surveillance. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy versus prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort health state transition model with four health states (stable disease, local recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was created, evaluating costs and utilities over a 10-year time horizon for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. National Health Service (NHS) for England perspective was used, based on direct healthcare costs. Clinical transition probabilities were derived from prostate cancer registries in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, EBRT and focal therapy using cryotherapy (Boston Scientific) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (Sonablate). Propensity score matching was used to ensure that at-risk populations were comparable. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group, maximum cancer core length (mm), T-stage and year of treatment. RESULTS: Focal therapy was associated with a lower overall cost and higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains than either prostatectomy or EBRT, dominating both treatment strategies. Positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) values confirm focal therapy as cost-effective versus the alternatives at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed consistent results. LIMITATIONS: Data used to calculate the transition probabilities were derived from a limited number of hospitals meaning that other potential treatment options were excluded. Limited data were available on later outcomes and none on quality of life data, therefore, literature-based estimates were used. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness modelling demonstrates use of focal therapy (cryotherapy or HIFU) is associated with greater QALY gains at a lower overall cost than either radical prostatectomy or EBRT, representing good value for money in the NHS.

Focal therapy can be used for the primary treatment of individual areas of cancer in those patients with prostate cancer whose disease has not spread (localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer) and whose disease is unsuitable for active monitoring. Focal therapy in these patients results in similar control of the cancer to more invasive therapies, such as surgical removal of the prostate and radiotherapy, with the benefit of fewer sexual, urinary and rectal side effects. This work considered whether using focal therapy (either freezing the cancer cells using cryotherapy or using high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU] to destroy cancer cells) was good value for money in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with surgery or radiotherapy. An economic model was developed which considered the relative impact of treatment with focal therapies, surgery or radiotherapy within the NHS in England. Previously collected information from people undergoing treatment for their prostate cancer, together with published literature and clinical opinion, was used within the model to predict the treatment pathway, costs incurred and the results of treatment in terms of patient benefits (effectiveness and quality of life). The model showed that focal therapy using either cryotherapy or HIFU was associated with a lower overall cost and higher patient benefit than either surgery or radiotherapy, indicating that focal therapy represents good value for money in the NHS.

The PRECISE Recommendations for Prostate MRI in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review.

The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations were published in 2016 to standardize the reporting of MRI examinations performed to assess for disease progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Although a limited number of studies have reported outcomes from use of PRECISE in clinical practice, the available studies have demonstrated PRECISE to have high pooled NPV but low pooled PPV for predicting progression. Our experience in using PRECISE in clinical practice at two teaching hospitals has highlighted issues with its application and areas requiring clarification. This Clinical Perspective critically appraises PRECISE on the basis of this experience, focusing on the system's key advantages and disadvantages and exploring potential changes to improve the system's utility. These changes include consideration of image quality when applying PRECISE scoring, incorporation of quantitative thresholds for disease progression, adoption of a PRECISE 3F sub-category for progression not qualifying as substantial, and comparisons with both the baseline and most recent prior examinations. Items requiring clarification include derivation of a patient-level score in patients with multiple lesions, intended application of PRECISE score 5 (i.e., if requiring development of disease that is no longer organ-confined), and categorization of new lesions in patients with prior MRI-invisible disease.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer-specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

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.

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.

Contemporary patterns of local ablative therapies for prostate cancer at United States cancer centers: results from a national registry.

PURPOSE: To describe the national-level patterns of care for local ablative therapy among men with PCa and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with the receipt of these techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with clinically localized PCa between 2010 and 2017. The main outcome was receipt of local tumor ablation with either cryo- or laser-ablation, and "other method of local tumor destruction including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)". Patient level, hospital level, and demographic variables were collected. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted to identify separately patient- and hospital-level predictors of receipt of local ablative therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 11,278 patients received ablative therapy, of whom 78.8% had cryotherapy, 15.6% had laser, and 5.7% had another method including HIFU. At the patient level, men with intermediate-risk PCa were more likely to be treated with local ablative therapy (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11; p = 0.05), as were men with Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.43; p < 0.01), men between 71 and 80 years (OR 3.70; 95% CI 3.43-3.99; p < 0.01), men with Medicare insurance (OR 1.38; 95% 1.31-1.46; p < 0.01), and an income < $47,999 (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.01). At the hospital-level, local ablative therapy was less likely to be performed in academic/research facilities (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32-0.64; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Local ablative therapy for PCa treatment is more commonly offered among older and comorbid patients. Future studies should investigate the uptake of these technologies in non-hospital-based settings and in light of recent changes in insurance coverage.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Protocol for a MULTI-centre feasibility study to assess the use of 99mTc-sestaMIBI SPECT/CT in the diagnosis of kidney tumours (MULTI-MIBI study).

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of renal tumours is increasing and anatomic imaging cannot reliably distinguish benign tumours from renal cell carcinoma. Up to 30% of renal tumours are benign, with oncocytomas the most common type. Biopsy has not been routinely adopted in many centres due to concerns surrounding non-diagnostic rate, bleeding and tumour seeding. As a result, benign masses are often unnecessarily surgically resected. 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT has shown high diagnostic accuracy for benign renal oncocytomas and other oncocytic renal neoplasms of low malignant potential in single-centre studies. The primary aim of MULTI-MIBI is to assess feasibility of a multicentre study of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT against a reference standard of histopathology from surgical resection or biopsy. Secondary aims of the study include obtaining estimates of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity and to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility prospective multicentre study of participants with indeterminate, clinical T1 renal tumours to undergo 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT (index test) compared with histopathology from biopsy or surgical resection (reference test). Interpretation of the index and reference tests will be blinded to the results of the other. Recruitment rate as well as estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value will be reported. Semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians will provide qualitative data to inform onward trial design and delivery. Training materials for 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT interpretation will be developed, assessed and optimised. Early health economic modelling using a decision analytic approach for different diagnostic strategies will be performed to understand the potential cost-effectiveness of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted (UK HRA REC 20/YH/0279) protocol V.5.0 dated 21/6/2022. Study outputs will be presented and published nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12572202.