Effect of digital-enabled multidisciplinary therapy conferences on efficiency and quality of the decision making in prostate cancer care.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact on efficiency and quality of preprostatectomy multidisciplinary therapy conferences (MDT) at Karolinska University Hospital related to the use of a digital solution compared with standard of care. Further, to explore whether gains in MDT efficiency and quality impact oncological or functional patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of preoperative prostate cancer MDT at Karolinska between February 2017 and March 2021, including 1329 patients. We compared efficiency and quality of the standard MDT and the MDT using the digital solution IntelliSpace Precision Medicine Multidisciplinary Team Orchestrator (ISPM) based on the previously used MDT-MODe approach. Clinical and patient-reported functional outcomes were derived from the medical records and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register. RESULTS: While ISPM was used during the MDT meeting, the time spent per patient was reduced by 24% (p<0.001) and most of the MDT-MODe items were scored significantly higher. There was a reduction in pelvic lymph-node dissection procedures in the ISPM cohort (p=0.001) and an increased proportion of unilateral nerve-sparing procedures (p=0.005), while all other outcome-related measures were not significantly different between the two patient groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: To increase the value of the MDT, all data relevant for treatment decision need to be purposefully presented and compiled, which also enables secondary use of the data.The use of a digital solution during preoperative MDTs for prostate cancer decision making at Karolinska University Hospital improved the efficiency and quality of this multidisciplinary team meeting without impacting patient outcomes.

Deep Learning for Real-time, Automatic, and Scanner-adapted Prostate (Zone) Segmentation of Transrectal Ultrasound, for Example, Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Although recent advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) led to an increase in MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsies, these are time consuming, laborious, and costly. Introduction of deep-learning approach would improve prostate segmentation. OBJECTIVE: To exploit deep learning to perform automatic, real-time prostate (zone) segmentation on TRUS images from different scanners. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three datasets with TRUS images were collected at different institutions, using an iU22 (Philips Healthcare, Bothell, WA, USA), a Pro Focus 2202a (BK Medical), and an Aixplorer (SuperSonic Imagine, Aix-en-Provence, France) ultrasound scanner. The datasets contained 436 images from 181 men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Manual delineations from an expert panel were used as ground truth. The (zonal) segmentation performance was evaluated in terms of the pixel-wise accuracy, Jaccard index, and Hausdorff distance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The developed deep-learning approach was demonstrated to significantly improve prostate segmentation compared with a conventional automated technique, reaching median accuracy of 98% (95% confidence interval 95-99%), a Jaccard index of 0.93 (0.80-0.96), and a Hausdorff distance of 3.0 (1.3-8.7) mm. Zonal segmentation yielded pixel-wise accuracy of 97% (95-99%) and 98% (96-99%) for the peripheral and transition zones, respectively. Supervised domain adaptation resulted in retainment of high performance when applied to images from different ultrasound scanners (p > 0.05). Moreover, the algorithm's assessment of its own segmentation performance showed a strong correlation with the actual segmentation performance (Pearson's correlation 0.72, p < 0.001), indicating that possible incorrect segmentations can be identified swiftly. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion-guided prostate biopsies, targeting suspicious lesions on MRI using TRUS are increasingly performed. The requirement for (semi)manual prostate delineation places a substantial burden on clinicians. Deep learning provides a means for fast and accurate (zonal) prostate segmentation of TRUS images that translates to different scanners. PATIENT SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence for automatic delineation of the prostate on ultrasound was shown to be reliable and applicable to different scanners. This method can, for example, be applied to speed up, and possibly improve, guided prostate biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion.

Cancer Detection Rates of Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies after Biparametric MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To compare prostate cancer detection rates (CDRs) and pathology results with targeted prostate biopsy (TB) and systematic prostate biopsy (SB) in biopsy-naive men. METHODS: An in-patient control study of 82 men undergoing SB and subsequent TB in case of positive prostate MRI between 2015 and 2017 in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. RESULTS: Prostate cancer (PCa) was detected in 54.9% with 70.7% agreement between TB and SB. Significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was detected in 24.4%. The CDR with TB and SB was 35.4% and 48.8%, respectively (p=0.052). The CDR of significant prostate cancer with TB and SB was both 20.7%. Clinically significant pathology upgrading occurred in 7.3% by adding TB to SB and 22.0% by adding SB to TB. CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference between CDRs of SB and TB. Both SB and TB miss significant PCas. Moreover, pathology upgrading occurred more often by adding SB to TB than vice versa. This indicates that the omission of SB in this study population might not be justified.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with dispersion analysis for the localization of prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.

PURPOSE: To determine the value of two-dimensional (2D) contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging and the additional value of contrast ultrasound dispersion imaging (CUDI) for the localization of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: In this multicentre study, subjects scheduled for a radical prostatectomy underwent 2D CEUS imaging preoperatively. CUDI maps were generated from the CEUS recordings. Both CEUS recordings and CUDI maps were scored on the likelihood of presenting csPCa (any Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 and Gleason 3 + 4 larger than 0.5 mL) by five observers and compared to radical prostatectomy histopathology. An automated three-dimensional (3D) fusion protocol was used to match imaging with histopathology. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was performed per observer and imaging modality. RESULTS: 133 of 216 (62%) patients were included in the final analysis. Average area under the ROC for all five readers for CEUS, CUDI and the combination was 0.78, 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. This yields a sensitivity and specificity of 81 and 64% for CEUS, 83 and 56% for CUDI and 83 and 55% for the combination. Interobserver agreement for CEUS, CUDI and the combination showed kappa values of 0.20, 0.18 and 0.18 respectively. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of 2D CEUS and CUDI for csPCa localization are moderate. Despite compressing CEUS in one image, CUDI showed a similar performance to 2D CEUS. With a sensitivity of 83% at cutoff point 3, it could become a useful imaging procedure, especially with 4D acquisition, improved quantification and combination with other US imaging techniques such as elastography.

Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To overcome the limitations regarding two dimensional (2D) greyscale (GS) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and tissue packaging in biopsy processing, there is an ongoing focus on new imaging and pathology techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the prostate with biopsy needle guidance can be generate by the Navigo™ workstation (UC-care, Israel). The SmartBX™ system (UC-care, Israel) provides a prostate biopsy core preembedding method. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the 3D TRUS-guidance and preembedding method with conventional 2D GS TRUS-guidance among patients undergoing prostate biopsies. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent prostate biopsies for PCa detection at our institution from 2007 to 2016. The cohort was divided into a 2D GS TRUS-guidance cohort (from 2007 to 2013, n = 1149) and a 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding cohort (from 2013 to 2016, n = 469). Effect of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding on detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or > 2 biopsy cores with a Gleason score 6) was compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance using regression models. RESULTS: Detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa was 39.0 and 24.9% in the 3D GS TRUS cohort compared to 33.5 and 19.0% in the 2D GS TRUS cohort, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis the use of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding was associated with a significant increase in detection rate of PCa (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03-1.72) and clinically significant PCa (aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.09-1.98). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 3D GS TRUS-guidance with biopsy core preembedding improves PCa and clinically significant PCa detection compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance. Additional studies are needed to justify the application of these systems in clinical practice.

The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy.

PURPOSE: Incorporation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (CaP) is rapidly becoming common practice. In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI a TBx only approach, thereby omitting transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (SBx), has been postulated. In this study we evaluated the additional clinical relevance of SBx in men with a positive prebiopsy mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥ 3) undergoing TBx for CaP detection, Gleason grading and CaP localization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective data of 255 consecutive men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) undergoing 12-core SBx and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion TBx in 2 institutions between 2015 and 2018 was obtained. The detection rate for significant CaP (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 3 + 4) for TBx and SBx were compared. The rate of potentially missed significant CaP by a TBx only approach was determined and GS concordance and CaP localization by TBx and SBx was evaluated. RESULTS: TBx yielded significant CaP in 113 men (44%) while SBx yielded significant CaP in 110 men (43%) (P = 0.856). Insignificant CaP was found in 21 men (8%) by TBx, while SBx detected 34 men (13%) with insignificant CaP (P = 0.035). A TBx only approach, omitting SBx, would have missed significant CaP in 13 of the 126 men (10%) with significant CaP on biopsy. Ten of the 118 men (8%), both positive on TBx and SBx, were upgraded in GS by SBx while 11 men (9%) had higher maximum tumor core involvement on SBx. Nineteen of the 97 men (20%) with significant CaP in both TBx and SBx were diagnosed with unilateral significant CaP on mpMRI and TBx while SBx demonstrated bilateral significant CaP. CONCLUSIONS: In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI, TBx detects high-GS CaP while reducing insignificant CaP detection as compared to SBx. SBx and TBx as stand-alone missed significant CaP in 13% and 10% of the men with significant CaP on biopsy, respectively. A combination of SBx and TBx remains necessary for the most accurate assessment of detection, grading, tumor core involvement, and localization of CaP.

Accurate validation of ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer: a review of challenges in registration of imaging and histopathology.

As the development of modalities for prostate cancer (PCa) imaging advances, the challenge of accurate registration between images and histopathologic ground truth becomes more pressing. Localization of PCa, rather than detection, requires a pixel-to-pixel validation of imaging based on histopathology after radical prostatectomy. Such a registration procedure is challenging for ultrasound modalities; not only the deformations of the prostate after resection have to be taken into account, but also the deformation due to the employed transrectal probe and the mismatch in orientation between imaging planes and pathology slices. In this work, we review the latest techniques to facilitate accurate validation of PCa localization in ultrasound imaging studies and extrapolate a general strategy for implementation of a registration procedure.

Concordance of Gleason grading with three-dimensional ultrasound systematic biopsy and biopsy core pre-embedding.

PURPOSE: To determine the value of a three-dimensional (3D) greyscale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy system and biopsy core pre-embedding method on concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prostate biopsies and subsequent RP for PCa in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands, from 2007 to 2016. Two cohorts were analysed: conventional 2D TRUS-guided biopsies and RP (2007-2013, n = 266) versus 3D TRUS-guided biopsies with pre-embedding (2013-2016, n = 129). The impact of 3D TRUS-guidance with pre-embedding on Gleason score (GS) concordance between biopsy and RP was evaluated using the κ-coefficient. Predictors of biopsy GS 6 upgrading were assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Gleason concordance was comparable between the two cohorts with a κ = 0.44 for the 3D cohort, compared to κ = 0.42 for the 2D cohort. 3D TRUS-guidance with pre-embedding, did not significantly affect the risk of biopsy GS 6 upgrading in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: 3D TRUS-guidance with biopsy core pre-embedding did not improve Gleason concordance. Improved detection techniques are needed for recognition of low-grade disease upgrading.

Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: The value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) remains controversial for biopsy-naïve men when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SBx). Risk-based patient selection could help to selectively identify men with significant prostate cancer (PCa) and thus reduce unnecessary mpMRI and biopsies. OBJECTIVES: To compare PCa detection rates for mpMRI TBx with SBx and to determine the rate of potentially avoided mpMRI and biopsies through risk-based selection using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred consecutive biopsy-naïve men in two centres underwent mpMRI scanning, 12-core SBx, and subsequent MRI-TRUS TBx in the case of suspicious lesion(s) (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v.2 score ≥3). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured the detection rate for high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) PCa for TBx and SBx. We carried out a retrospective stratification according to RPCRC biopsy advice to determine the rate of mpMRI and biopsies that could potentially be avoided by RPCRC-based patient selection in relation to the rate of high-grade PCa missed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TBx yielded high-grade PCa in 51 men (26%) and low-grade PCa in 14 men (7%), while SBx yielded high-grade PCa in 63 men (32%) and low-grade PCa in 41 men (21%). Four out of 73 men (5%) with negative RPCRC advice and 63 out of 127 men (50%) with positive advice had high-grade PCa. Upfront RPCRC-based patient selection for mpMRI and TBx would have avoided 73 out of 200 (37%) mpMRI scans, missing two out of 51 (4%) high-grade PCas. Limitations include the RPCRC definition of high- and low-grade PCa and different mpMRI techniques. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI with TBx detected PCa with high Gleason score and avoided biopsy in low-grade PCa, but failed to detect all high-grade PCa when compared to SBx among biopsy-naïve men. Risk-based patient selection using the RPCRC can avoid one-third of mpMRI scans and SBx in biopsy-naïve men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with a suspicion of prostate cancer are increasingly undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Although promising, MRI-targeted biopsy is not accurate enough to safely replace systematic prostate biopsy for now. Individualised assessment of prostate cancer risk using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator could avoid one-third of MRI scans and systematic prostate biopsies.

Prediction of Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the ERSPC Risk Calculator in a Contemporary Dutch Clinical Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The validity of prediction models needs external validation to assess their value beyond the original development setting. OBJECTIVE: To report the diagnostic accuracy of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (RC)3 and RC4 in a contemporary Dutch clinical cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively identified all men who underwent prostate biopsy (PBx) in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, The Netherlands, between 2007 and 2016. Patients were included if they met ERSPC RC requirements of age (50-80 yr), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (0.4-50 ng/ml), and prostate volume (10-150ml). The probability of a positive biopsy for prostate cancer (PCa) and significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7 and/or higher than T2b) were calculated and compared with PBx pathology results. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Evaluation was performed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness using calibration plots, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), and decision curve analyses (DCAs), respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2270 PBx sessions were eligible for final analysis. Discriminative ability of RC3 (AUC) was 0.78 and 0.90 for any PCa and significant PCa, respectively. For RC4 the calculated AUCs were 0.62 (any PCa) and 0.76 (significant PCa). The calibration plots of RC3 showed good results for both any PCa risk and significant PCa risk. In the repeat PBx group, RC4 tended to underestimate outcomes for PCa and showed moderate calibration for significant PCa. DCA showed an overall net benefit compared with PSA and digital rectal examination (DRE) alone. Limitations of this study are its retrospective single-institution design, retrospectively assessed DRE outcomes, no time restrictions between the first and repeat biopsy sessions, and no anterior sampling in the repeat PBx protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The ERSPC RCs performed well in a contemporary clinical setting. Most pronounced in the biopsy-naive group, both RCs should be favoured over a PSA plus DRE-based stratification in the decision whether or not to perform PBx. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the ability of the existing European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (RC), using different clinical data to predict the presence of prostate cancer in Dutch men. The RC performed well and should be favoured in the decision of whether or not to perform prostate biopsies over the conventional diagnostic pathway.

3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection.

INTRODUCTION: To overcome the limitations regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies in prostate cancer (PCa) detection, there is a focus on new imaging technologies. The Navigo™ system (UC-care, Israel) uses regular TRUS images and electrospatial monitoring to generate a 3D model of the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the Navigo™ system and conventional TRUS, in patients without a history of PCa. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by collecting data from all patients who underwent 12-core prostate biopsies from lateral peripheral zones between September 2013 and February 2015 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). RESULTS: A total of 325 patients met our inclusion criteria. 77.8 % of biopsy sessions were performed using the Navigo™ system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo™ system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo™ system for taking prostate biopsies proved not to be associated with the presence of PCa at biopsy, likewise for clinically significant PCa and for both subgroups. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include its retrospective design, the limited number of patients in the conventional TRUS group, the statistically significant different number of biopsy sessions and the ones performed by an advanced physician in both groups. CONCLUSION: In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.

The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review.

Despite limitations considering the presence, staging and aggressiveness of prostate cancer, ultrasonography (US)-guided systematic biopsies (SBs) are still the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Recently, promising results have been published for targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion platforms. Different platforms are USA Food and Drug Administration registered and have, mostly subjective, strengths and weaknesses. To our knowledge, no systematic review exists that objectively compares prostate cancer detection rates between the different platforms available. To assess the value of the different MRI/US-fusion platforms in prostate cancer detection, we compared platform-guided TB with SB, and other ways of MRI TB (cognitive fusion or in-bore MR fusion). We performed a systematic review of well-designed prospective randomised and non-randomised trials in the English language published between 1 January 2004 and 17 February 2015, using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included: 'prostate cancer', 'MR/ultrasound(US) fusion' and 'targeted biopsies'. Extraction of articles was performed by two authors (M.G. and A.A.) and were evaluated by the other authors. Randomised and non-randomised prospective clinical trials comparing TB using MRI/US-fusion platforms and SB, or other ways of TB (cognitive fusion or MR in-bore fusion) were included. In all, 11 of 1865 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving seven different fusion platforms and 2626 patients: 1119 biopsy naïve, 1433 with prior negative biopsy, 50 not mentioned (either biopsy naïve or with prior negative biopsy) and 24 on active surveillance (who were disregarded). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of included articles. No clear advantage of MRI/US fusion-guided TBs was seen for cancer detection rates (CDRs) of all prostate cancers. However, MRI/US fusion-guided TBs tended to give higher CDRs for clinically significant prostate cancers in our analysis. Important limitations of the present systematic review include: the limited number of included studies, lack of a general definition of 'clinically significant' prostate cancer, the heterogeneous study population, and a reference test with low sensitivity and specificity. Today, a limited number of prospective studies have reported the CDRs of fusion platforms. Although MRI/US-fusion TB has proved its value in men with prior negative biopsies, general use of this technique in diagnosing prostate cancer should only be performed after critical consideration. Before bringing MRI/US fusion-guided TB in to general practice, there is a need for more prospective studies on prostate cancer diagnosis.