Does mpMRI guidance improve HIFU partial gland ablation compared to conventional ultrasound guidance? Early functional outcomes and complications from a single center

ABSTRACT Background Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment is raising interest. New technological mpMRI-US guided FT devices have never been compared with the previous generation of ultrasound-only guided devices. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of men undergoing FT for localized low- or intermediate-risk PCa with US- (Ablatherm®-2009 to 2014) or mpMRI-US (Focal One®-from 2014) guided HIFU. Follow-up visits and data were collected using internationally validated questionnaires at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results We included n=88 US-guided FT HIFU and n=52 mpMRI-US guided FT HIFU respectively. No major baseline differences were present except higher rates of Gleason 3+4 for the mpMRI-US group. No major differences were present in hospital stay (p=0.1), catheterization time (p=0.5) and complications (p=0.2) although these tended to be lower in the mpMRI-US group (6.8% versus 13.2% US FT group). At 3 months mpMRI-US guided HIFU had significantly lower urine leak (5.1% vs. 15.9%, p=0.04) and a lower drop in IIEF scores (2 vs. 4.2, p=0.07). Of those undergoing 12-months control biopsy in the mpMRI-US-guided HIFU group, 26% had residual cancer in the treated lobe. Conclusion HIFU FT guided by MRI-US fusion may allow improved functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to US- guided HIFU FT alone. Further analysis is needed to confirm benefits of mpMRI implementation at a longer follow-up and on a larger cohort of patients.

Is possible to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2 for the assessment of prostate MRI?

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of PI-RADS v2. Materials and Methods In this Institutional Review Board approved single-center retrospective study, 98 patients with clinically suspected PCa who underwent 3-T multiparametric MRI followed by MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy were included from June 2013 to February 2015. Two radiologists (R1 and R2) with 8 and 1 years of experience in abdominal radiology reviewed the MRI scans and assigned PI-RADS v2 scores in all prostate zones. PI-RADS v2 were compared to MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy results, which were classified as negative, PCa, and significant PCa (sPCa). Results Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and accuracy for PCa was 85.7% (same for all metrics) for R1 and 81.6%, 79.6%, 81.2%, 80.0% and 80.6% for R2. For detecting sPCa, the corresponding values were 95.3%, 85.4%, 95.9%, 83.7% and 89.8% for R1 and 93.0%, 81.8%, 93.7%, 86.7% and 86.7% for R2. There was substantial interobserver agreement in assigning PI-RADS v2 score as negative (1, 2, 3) or positive (4, 5) (Kappa=0.78). On multivariate analysis, PI-RADS v2 (p <0.001) was the only independent predictor of sPCa compared with age, abnormal DRE, prostate volume, PSA and PSA density. Conclusions Our study population demonstrated that PI-RADS v2 had high diagnostic accuracy, substantial interobserver agreement, and it was the only independent predictor of sPCa.

Impact of PI-RADS v2 on indication of prostate biopsy

ABSTRACT Objectives: To identify the group of patients who could safely avoid prostate biopsy based on the findings of multiparametric prostate resonance imaging (MRmp), parameterized with PI-RADS v2, using prostate biopsy as reference test and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of mpMR in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer using prostate biopsy as a reference test. Patients and Methods: Three hundred and forty two patients with suspected prostate cancer were evaluated with mpMR and prostate biopsy. Agreement between imaging findings and histopathological findings was assessed using the Kappa index. The accuracy of mpMR in relation to biopsy was assessed by calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: A total of 342 biopsies were performed. In 201 (61.4%), mpMR had a negative result for cancer, which was confirmed on biopsy in 182 (53%) of the cases, 17 (4.9%) presented non-clinically significant cancer and only 2 (0.5%) clinically significant cancer. 131 (38.3%) patients had a positive biopsy. Clinically significant cancer corresponded to 83 (34.2%), of which 81 (97.5%) had a positive result in mpMR. Considering only the clinically significant cancers the mpMR had a sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 76.8%, PPV 57.4% and VPN of 99%. Conclusions: mpMR is a useful tool to safely identify which patients at risk for prostate cancer need to undergo biopsy and has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer.

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting extracapsular extension in intermediate and high - risk prostate cancer

ABSTRACT Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) as a predictor of extracapsular extension (ECE) and unfavorable Gleason score (GS) in patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: Patients with clinically localized PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and had preoperative mp-MRI between May-2011 and December-2013. Mp-MRI was evaluated according to the European Society of Urogenital Radiology MRI prostate guidelines by two different readers. Histopathological RP results were the standard reference. Results: 79 patients were included; mean age was 61 and median preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 7.0. On MRI, 28% patients had ECE evidenced in the mp-MRI, 5% seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and 4% lymph node involvement (LNI). At RP, 39.2% had ECE, 26.6% SVI and 12.8% LNI. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mp-MRI for ECE were 54.9%, 90.9%, 76%, 81% and 74.1% respectively; for SVI values were 19.1%, 100%, 77.3%, 100% and 76.1% respectively and for LNI 20%, 98.4%, 86.7%, 66.7% and 88.7%. Conclusions: Major surgical decisions are made with digital rectal exam (DRE) and ultrasound studies before the use of Mp-MRI. This imaging study contributes to rule out gross extraprostatic extension (ECE, SVI, LNI) without competing with pathological studies. The specificity and NPV are reasonable to decide surgical approach. A highly experienced radiology team is needed to provide accurate estimations of tumor extension and aggressiveness.

The association between the outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the anthropometric measurements of the prostate by magnetic resonance imaging

ABSTRACT Introduction and objective To determine the association between the anthropometric measurements by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and perioperative outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP). Materials and Methods From 2008 to June 2016, 86 patients underwent preoperative MRI prior to undergoing ELRP for localized prostate cancer. We analyzed the associations between anthropometric measurements of MRI and the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent ELRP. Results The mean patient age was 69.61±8.30 years. The medians of operating time and blood loss were 2.30 hours and 725.30ml, respectively. The total post-surgical complication rate was 1.16%. The median hospital stay was 6.50 days. The pathological stages for T2 and T3 were 45.74% and 34.04%, respectively. The rate as positive surgical margins (PSMs) was 18.09% (pT2 and pT3; 6.38% and 9.57%). The angles between pubic bone and prostate gland (angle 1&2), were significantly associated with operative time and hospital stay, respectively (p<0.05). There was no correlation between the pelvimetry and positive surgical margin. Conclusions The findings of the present study suggest that anthropometric measurements of the MRI are related to operative difficulties in ELRP. This study confirmed that MRI planning is the key to preventing complications in ELRP.

Does an asymmetric lobe in digital rectal examination include any risk for prostate cancer? results of 1495 biopsies

ABSTRACT Introduction: Despite the well-known findings related to malignity in DRE such as nodule and induration, asymmetry of prostatic lobes, seen relatively, were investigated in a few studies as a predictor of prostate cancer so that there is no universally expected conclusion about asymmetry. We aimed to compare cancer detection rate of normal, asymmetric or suspicious findings in DRE by using biopsy results. Materials and Methods: Data of 1495 patients underwent prostate biopsy between 2006-2014 were searched retrospectively. Biopsy indications were abnormal DRE and or elevated PSA level(>4ng/mL). DRE findings were recorded as Group 1: Benign DRE, Group 2: Asymmetry and Group 3: Nodule/induration. Age, prostatic volume, biopsy results and PSA levels were recorded. Results: Mean age, prostate volume and PSA level were 66.72, 55.98 cc and 18.61ng/ mL respectively. Overall cancer detection rate was 38.66 % (575 of 1495). PSA levels were similar in group 1 and 2 but significantly higher in group 3. Prostatic volume was similar in group 1 and 2 and significantly lower in Group 3. Malignity detection rate of group 1,2 and 3 were 28.93%, 34.89% and 55.99% respectively. Group 1 and 2 were similar (p=0.105) but 3 had more chance for cancer detection. Conclusion: Nodule is the most important finding in DRE for cancer detection. Only an asymmetric prostate itself does not mean malignity.