RESUMO
Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.
Assuntos
Benchmarking , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Masculino , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) using double-pigtail stents (DPSs) is a well-established treatment for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing ETD with DPSs left indwelling versus those where stents were removed or migrated. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included patients with WON who underwent ETD using DPSs between July 2001 and December 2019. The primary outcome was recurrence of a pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). Secondary outcomes were long-term complications and recurrence-associated factors. Competing risk regression analysis considered DPS removal or migration as time-varying covariates. RESULTS: Among 320 patients (median age 58; 36% women), DPSs were removed in 153 (47.8%), migrated spontaneously in 27 (8.4%), and remained indwelling in 140 (43.8%). PFC recurrence was observed in 57 patients (17.8%): after removal (n = 39; 25.5%); after migration (n = 4; 14.8%); in patients with indwelling DPSs (n = 14; 10.0%). In 25 patients (7.8%), drainage of recurrent PFC was indicated. Risk factors for recurrence were DPS removal or migration (hazard ratio [HR] 3.45, 95%CI 1.37-8.70) and presence of a disconnected pancreatic duct (HR 5.08, 95%CI 1.84-14.0). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who undergo ETD of WON, leaving DPSs in situ seems to lower the risk of recurrent fluid collections, without any long-term DPS-related complications. These results suggest that DPSs should not be routinely removed and can be safely left indwelling indefinitely.
Assuntos
Drenagem , Pancreatite Necrosante Aguda , Plásticos , Recidiva , Stents , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Stents/efeitos adversos , Drenagem/métodos , Drenagem/efeitos adversos , Pancreatite Necrosante Aguda/cirurgia , Idoso , Remoção de Dispositivo/métodos , Adulto , Migração de Corpo Estranho/etiologia , Endoscopia do Sistema Digestório/métodosRESUMO
MRI retains its ability to reduce the harm of prostate biopsies by decreasing biopsy rates and the detection of indolent cancers in population-based screening studies aiming to find clinically significant prostate cancers. Limitations of low positive predictive values and high reader variability in diagnostic performance require optimisations in patient selection, imaging protocols, interpretation standards, diagnostic thresholds, and biopsy methods. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy could come about through emerging technologies like risk calculators and polygenic risk scores to select men for MRI. Furthermore, artificial intelligence and workflow optimisations focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway, quality control, and assurance measures will improve MRI variability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI significantly reduces harm in prostate cancer screening, lowering unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers. MRI maintains the effective detection of high-grade cancers, thus improving the overall benefit-to-harm ratio in population-based screenings with or without using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for patient selection. KEY POINTS: ⢠The use of MRI enables the harm reduction benefits seen in individual early cancer detection to be extended to both risk-stratified and non-stratified prostate cancer screening populations. ⢠MRI limitations include a low positive predictive value and imperfect reader variability, which require standardising interpretations, biopsy methods, and integration into a quality diagnostic pathway. ⢠Current evidence is based on one-time point use of MRI in screening; MRI effectiveness in multiple rounds of screening is not well-documented.
Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Biópsia/métodos , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Medição de Risco/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors influencing the diagnostic performance of the quantitative imaging biomarkers ADC and ADCratio in prostate cancer (PCa) detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline and Web of Science, for studies evaluating ADC values and ADCratio for PCa diagnosis, using the same patient cohorts and using histopathological references as ground truth. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, summary ROC curves and AUCs were calculated from constructed contingency data tables. Diagnostic performance (AUC) was quantitatively pooled using a bivariate mixed effects model. For identifying influencing factors, subgroup analysis, publication bias and heterogeneity assessment were investigated. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, involving 1038 patients and 1441 lesions, were included. For ADC, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-85%) and 78% (95% CI: 70-85%), respectively. For ADCratio pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-84%) and 80% (95% CI: 71-87%). Summary ROC analysis revealed AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), respectively. Meta-regression showed heterogeneity between both imaging biomarkers. Subgroup analysis showed that ADCratio improved diagnostic performance in comparison to ADC when including both peripheral and transitional zone lesions (AUC: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.84-0.90] and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.85], respectively). CONCLUSION: Both ADC and ADCratio imaging biomarkers showed good and comparable diagnostic performance in PCa diagnosis. However, ADCratio shows better diagnostic performance than ADC in diagnosing transition zone cancers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In quantitative MRI-based PCa diagnosis, the imaging biomarker ADCratio is useful in challenging MRI readings of lesions. Understanding the performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers better can aid diagnostic MRI protocols, enhancing the precision of PCa assessments. KEY POINTS: MRI diffusion-weighted imaging-based ADC and ADCratio have comparable diagnostic performance in PCa assessment. In contrast to ADC, the ADCratio improves diagnostic performance, when assessing whole gland lesions. Compared to ADCratio, the ADC demonstrates enhanced diagnostic performance when evaluating peripheral zone lesions.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the membranous urethral length (MUL) measurement and its interobserver agreement, and propose literature-based recommendations to standardize MUL measurement for increasing interobserver agreement. MUL measurements based on prostate MRI scans, for urinary incontinence risk assessment before radical prostatectomy (RP), may influence treatment decision-making in men with localised prostate cancer. Before implementation in clinical practise, MRI-based MUL measurements need standardization to improve observer agreement. METHODS: Online libraries were searched up to August 5, 2022, on MUL measurements. Two reviewers performed article selection and critical appraisal. Papers reporting on preoperative MUL measurements and urinary continence correlation were selected. Extracted information included measuring procedures, MRI sequences, population mean/median values, and observer agreement. RESULTS: Fifty papers were included. Studies that specified the MRI sequence used T2-weighted images and used either coronal images (n = 13), sagittal images (n = 18), or both (n = 12) for MUL measurements. 'Prostatic apex' was the most common description of the proximal membranous urethra landmark and 'level/entry of the urethra into the penile bulb' was the most common description of the distal landmark. Population mean (median) MUL value range was 10.4-17.1 mm (7.3-17.3 mm), suggesting either population or measurement differences. Detailed measurement technique descriptions for reproducibility were lacking. Recommendations on MRI-based MUL measurement were formulated by using anatomical landmarks and detailed descriptions and illustrations. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve on measurement variability, a literature-based measuring method of the MUL was proposed, supported by several illustrative case studies, in an attempt to standardize MRI-based MUL measurements for appropriate urinary incontinence risk preoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Implementation of MUL measurements into clinical practise for personalized post-prostatectomy continence prediction is hampered by lack of standardization and suboptimal interobserver agreement. Our proposed standardized MUL measurement aims to facilitate standardization and to improve the interobserver agreement. KEY POINTS: ⢠Variable approaches for membranous urethral length measurement are being used, without detailed description and with substantial differences in length of the membranous urethra, hampering standardization. ⢠Limited interobserver agreement for membranous urethral length measurement was observed in several studies, while preoperative incontinence risk assessment necessitates high interobserver agreement. ⢠Literature-based recommendations are proposed to standardize MRI-based membranous urethral length measurement for increasing interobserver agreement and improving preoperative incontinence risk assessment, using anatomical landmarks on sagittal T2-weighted images.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Incontinência Urinária , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/cirurgia , Uretra/diagnóstico por imagem , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Prostatectomia/métodos , Incontinência Urinária/diagnóstico por imagem , Incontinência Urinária/etiologia , Incontinência Urinária/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodosRESUMO
Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI.
Assuntos
Meios de Contraste , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/normas , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Multiparamétrica/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively review the literature on the integration of MRI as a diagnostic tool in prostate cancer screening and offer practical recommendations for optimising its use. METHODS: Existing research studies, clinical guidelines and expert opinions were reviewed to support the optimisation standards for MRI use in screening. Consolidated screening principles were used to make appropriate recommendations regarding the integration of MRI into the diagnostic pathway. RESULTS: To strike a balance between the potential benefits of early detection on mortality and minimising the harm of over-diagnosing indolent cancers, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the context of MRI use. The key to optimisation is patient selections and MRI-targeted biopsies. For men at higher-than-average risk, it is essential to use screening-specific MRI protocols and establish accuracy levels and interpretation criteria. Optimisation of readings by the automation of data acquisition, image quality monitoring, post-processing, radiologist certification and deep-learning computer-aided software is needed. The optimal utilisation of MRI involves its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging. CONCLUSION: MRI in the prostate cancer screening pathway can bring substantial diagnostic benefits. By carefully considering its advantages, limitations and safety concerns and integrating it into a multistep diagnostic pathway, clinicians can improve outcomes while minimising harm to screening participants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The manuscript discusses the role of MRI in prostate cancer screening, highlighting its potential to improve accuracy and reduce overdiagnosis. It emphasises the importance of optimising protocols and integrating MRI into a multistep diagnostic pathway for successfully delivering screening benefits. KEY POINTS: ⢠Population screening for prostate cancer is a new indication for prostate MRI that allows the detection of high-risk cancers while reducing the need for biopsies and associated harm. ⢠To optimise prostate cancer screening using MRI, it is essential to redefine MRI protocols; establish accuracy levels, reliability and interpretation criteria; and optimise reading (including post-processing, image quality, radiologist certification, and deep-learning computer-aided software). ⢠The optimal utilisation of MRI for prostate cancer screening would involve its integration into a multistep diagnostic pathway, supported by a quality-assured and cost-effective infrastructure that ensures community-wide access to imaging.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The membranous urethral length (MUL), defined as the length between the apex and penile base as measured on preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is an important predictor for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Literature on inter- and intra - observer agreement of MUL measurement is limited. We studied the inter- and intra-observer agreement between radiologists using a well-defined method to measure the MUL on the prostate MRI. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients underwent a preoperative MRI and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at one high-volume RARP center. MUL measurement was based on well-defined landmarks on sagittal T2-weighted (anatomical) images. Three radiologists independently performed MUL measurements retrospectively in 106 patients blinded to themselves, to each other, and to clinical outcomes. The inter- and intra-observer agreement of MUL measurement between the radiologists were calculated, expressed as intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The initial inter-observer agreement was ICC 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81. Radiologist 3 measured the MUL mean 3.9 mm (SD 3.3) longer than the other readers, interpreting the caudal point of the MUL (penile base) differently. After discussion on the correct anatomical definition, radiologist 3 re-assessed all scans, which resulted in a high inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.84; 95% CI 0.66-0.91). After a subsequent reading by radiologists 1 and 2, the intra-observer agreements were ICC 0.93; 95% CI 0.89-0.96, and ICC 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.98, respectively. Limitation is the monocenter design. CONCLUSIONS: The MUL can be measured reliably with high agreement among radiologists. KEY POINTS: ⢠After discussion on the correct anatomical definition, the inter- and intra - observer agreements of membranous urethral length (MUL) measurement on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were high. ⢠A reproducible method to measure the MUL can improve the clinical usefulness of prediction models for urinary continence after RARP which may benefit patient counselling.
Assuntos
Próstata , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Uretra/diagnóstico por imagem , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodosRESUMO
AIMS: Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) percentage, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (IC/IDC) and the presence of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (TP5) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens all aid in the risk stratification of Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer patients. However, it is unclear to what extent these pathological features are mutually related and what are their individual values if they are investigated simultaneously. The aims of this study were: (i) to determine the mutual relationships of the GP4 percentage, IC/IDC and TP5 in GG2 RP specimens; and (ii) to assess their prognostic value for biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 1064 RP specimens, 472 (44.4%) showed GG2 prostate cancer. Patients with ≥25% GP4 more frequently had IC/IDC (67.0% versus 43.9%; P < 0.001) and TP5 (20.6% versus 5.8%; P < 0.001) than those with <25% GP4. In unadjusted analysis, an increased GP4 percentage [hazard ratio (HR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.6; P = 0.04] and IC/IDC (log rank P < 0.001) were associated with shorter BCRFS, whereas TP5 (P = 0.12) and a dichotomised (<25%, ≥25%) GP4 percentage (P = 0.10) were not. In multivariable analysis, IC/IDC was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2-2.9; P = 0.005) for BCRFS, whereas a continuous or dichotomised GP4 percentage and TP5 were not independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a higher GP4 percentage in RP specimens was associated with more frequent IC/IDC and TP5. IC/IDC was an independent predictor for BCRFS, whereas the GP4 percentage and TP5 were not. These findings underscore the importance of routinely including the presence of IC/IDC in RP pathology reports.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Gradação de Tumores , Prognóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Carcinoma Intraductal não Infiltrante/patologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , ProstatectomiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic importance of concomitant non-regional lymph node (NRLN) and bone metastases in men with synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and to determine whether M1b/M1c is the most appropriate M-stage and evaluate the additional importance to the distinction in low/high volume disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All men diagnosed with synchronous mHSPC from 2010 to 2018 in the Netherlands were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Men were categorised as having NRLN (M1a), bone (M1b), NRLN and bone (M1c), or visceral metastases (M1c). For men diagnosed since October 2015 disease volume could be determined. Analyses were performed in this cohort (>5600 men) and repeated in the 2010-2018 cohort (>14 000 men). The primary outcome measure in this observational cohort study was overall survival (OS) and Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Compared to men with NRLN and bone metastases (reference group), OS of men with only NRLN (HR 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.88) was better. This was also true for men with only bone metastases in the low-volume subgroup (HR 0.75, 95% CI0.58-0.98), but not in the high-volume subgroup (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.18). In contrast, the OS of men with visceral metastases was worse (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.75-2.77 + 0.97/month, 95% CI 0.96-0.98). CONCLUSION: In men with low-volume synchronous mHSPC, presence of concomitant NRLN and bone metastases (currently classified as M1c), is a poor prognostic sign. However, survival of men with visceral metastases (M1c) is worse. Implying that classifying concomitant NRLN and bone metastases as M1c or M1b is not appropriate. Adding a fourth M1-category to the ninth edition of the Tumour-Node-Metastasis classification should be contemplated. Furthermore, definitions of metastatic burden need to be re-evaluated.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Ósseas , Segunda Neoplasia Primária , Neoplasias da Próstata , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Humanos , Linfonodos/patologia , Masculino , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of early oncological outcomes in patients who opt for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa), including conventional prognostic variables as well as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study included 493 patients who underwent RARP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) for unfavourable intermediate- or high-risk PCa. Outcome measurement was biochemical progression of disease, defined as any postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value ≥0.2 ng/mL, or the start of additional treatment. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess predictors for biochemical progression, including initial PSA value, biopsy Grade Group (GG), T-stage on mpMRI, and lymph node status on PSMA PET imaging (miN0 vs miN1). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) total follow-up of all included patients without biochemical progression was 12.6 (7.5-22.7) months. When assessing biochemical progression after surgery, initial PSA value (per doubling; odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.40; P = 0.004), biopsy GG ≥4 vs GG 1-2 (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.18-2.85; P = 0.007), T-stage on mpMRI (rT3a vs rT2: OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.39-3.27; P = 0.001; ≥rT3b vs rT2: OR 4.78, 95% CI 3.20-7.16; P < 0.001) and miN1 on PSMA PET imaging (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.02-4.27; P < 0.001) were independent predictors of early biochemical progression of disease. CONCLUSION: Initial PSA value, biopsy GG ≥4, ≥rT3 disease on mpMRI and miN1 disease on PSMA PET were predictors of early biochemical progression after RARP. Identifying these patients with an increased risk of early biochemical progression after surgery may have major implications for patient counselling in radical treatment decisions and on patient selection for modern (neo-)adjuvant and systematic treatments.
Assuntos
Linfonodos/diagnóstico por imagem , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Multiparamétrica , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Antígenos de Superfície , Biópsia , Progressão da Doença , Glutamato Carboxipeptidase II , Humanos , Excisão de Linfonodo , Linfonodos/patologia , Metástase Linfática , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Pelve , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Período Pré-Operatório , Prognóstico , Próstata/patologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Prostatectomia , Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate and compare the performance of different proposed diagnostic pathways in a cohort of biopsy-naïve men at risk for prostate cancer (PCa), in terms of biopsy avoidance, accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and reduction in overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (cisPCa), with particular focus on a recently suggested "risk-based" MRI-directed diagnostic pathway. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective cohort study, including 499 biopsy-naïve men at risk for PCa. All men underwent PI-RADS-compliant prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided targeted (TBx), and systematic biopsy (SBx). Five diagnostic pathways were retrospectively evaluated and compared for. Outcome measures were biopsy avoidance, combined with missed csPCa and detected cisPCa. csPCa and cisPCa were defined as ISUP grade group ≥ 2 and grade = 1, respectively. Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Decision curve analyses were used to compare the benefits of the pathways across a range of biopsy thresholds. RESULTS: The prevalence (detection-focused [reference] pathway) of csPCa and cisPCa was 52.9% (264/499) and 23.0% (115/499). MRI-focused pathway (no biopsy in PI-RADS 1-2 men) did not significantly reduce ISUP ≥ 2 cancer detection (52.1% (260/499); p = 0.13), but significantly reduced ISUP 1 cancers diagnosed (20.6% (103/499); p < 0.01), and biopsy avoidance was 11.8% (59/499). The risk-based MRI-directed pathway (no biopsy in low-risk PI-RADS 1-3 men) resulted in a small reduction of ISUP ≥ 2 diagnosed (51.7% (258/499); p = 0.04), however non-significant when compared to MRI-focused pathway (p = 0.625). Moreover, the risk-based pathway further reduced detection of ISUP 1 (18.6% (93/499); p < 0.01), and biopsy avoidance was 19.2% (96/499). Decision curve analysis showed maximized net benefit of the risk-based pathway, for the range of threshold probabilities between 6.25 and 65%. CONCLUSION: The risk-based MRI-directed pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis was optimal in balancing accurate diagnosis, reducing overdiagnosis, and maximizing biopsy avoidance. This substantial evidence should inform guideline recommendations towards using "risk-based" MRI-directed biopsy decisions in biopsy-naïve men at risk of significant prostate cancer. KEY POINTS: ⢠Our study recognizes the added value of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsies in order to propose clinical diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer, towards maximizing the potential avoidance of unnecessary biopsies, while maintaining optimal detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. ⢠The risk-based MRI-directed pathway incorporates risk factors such as PSA density, digital rectal examination, and family history to further refine the initial stratification of patients based on PI-RADS scores. ⢠In this study, the risk-based pathway had the most optimal performance in terms of combination of outcomes, with the highest rate of biopsy avoidance (19.2%), while keeping a high detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (51.7%), when compared to the reference standard (52.9%).
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
PURPOSE: In biopsy naïve men suspected for prostate cancer (PCa), it is uncertain how a risk-calculator and bi-parametric (bp) MRI should be combined to decide on prostate biopsy, balancing cancer detection rates and diagnostic burden. METHODS: Prospective, single centre cohort study (August 2018-April 2019). All patients referred with serum PSA ≥ 3 ng/ml or abnormal digital rectal examination received bpMRI and risk for PCa was calculated using the ERSPC risk-calculator. Men with either PI-RADS ≥ 3 or calculator risk-score > 20% were recommended to undergo systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB) of any visible lesion (reference pathway). Eight different derived diagnostic pathways were compared to the reference pathway regarding cancer detection, number of biopsies and bpMRIs performed. RESULTS: Of 496 patients; 233 (47%) had a risk-calculator score of > 20%; 201 (41%) had PI-RADS score ≥ 3. The reference pathway detected PCa in 32.1%, clinically significant (cs) PCa in 19.4%, with 41% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only risk-calculator: 76% csPCa diagnosed, 53% avoided biopsies and 100% avoided bpMRI. Stratification with only bpMRI: 97% csPCa diagnosed, 59% avoided biopsies, but 0% avoided bpMRI. A pathway with risk-calculator first, followed only with bpMRI when high-risk: 81% csPCa diagnosed, 72% avoided biopsies and 53% avoided bpMRI. CONCLUSION: Upfront bpMRI as a risk stratification tool outperforms risk-calculator in detecting significant disease. Applying the risk-calculator first to decide on performing an MRI, avoids 1 out of 2 MRIs, but up to 1 out of 5 significant cancers are missed.
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologia , Medição de Risco , Biópsia , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
KEY POINTS: ⢠Identify, assure, and measure major sources of variability affecting the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.⢠Develop strategies to control and minimize variations that impair pathway effectiveness including the performance of main players and team working.⢠Assure end-to-end quality of the diagnostic chain with robust multidisciplinary team working.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Biópsia , Humanos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: ⢠AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence. ⢠Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists' workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies. ⢠Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.
Assuntos
Inteligência Artificial , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Humanos , Masculino , Valor Preditivo dos TestesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported tumor volume underestimation with multiparametric (mp)MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis. PURPOSE: To investigate why some parts of lesions are not visible on mpMRI by comparing their histopathology features to those of visible regions. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Thirty-four patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer scheduled for prostatectomy (median 68.7 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging, T2 mapping, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI on two 3T systems and one 1.5T system. ASSESSMENT: Two readers delineated suspicious lesions on mpMRI. A pathologist delineated the lesions on histopathology. A patient-customized mold enabled the registration of histopathology and MRI. On histopathology we identified mpMRI visible and invisible lesions. Subsequently, within the visible lesions we identified regions that were visible and regions that were invisible on mpMRI. For each lesion and region the following characteristics were determined: size, location, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, and Gleason subpatterns (density [dense/intermediate], tumor morphology [homogeneous/heterogeneous], cribriform growth [yes/no]). STATISTICAL TESTS: With generalized linear mixed-effect modeling we investigated which features explain why a lesion or a region was invisible on MRI. We compared imaging values (T2 , ADC, and Ktrans ) for these features with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Small, anterior, and ISUP grade 1-2 lesions (n = 34) were missed more frequent than large, posterior, ISUP grade ≥ 3 lesions (n = 35). Invisible regions on mpMRI had lower tumor density, heterogeneous tumor morphology, and were located in the transition zone. Both T2 and ADC values were higher in "intermediate" compared with "dense" regions (P = 0.002 and < 0.001) and in regions with heterogeneous compared with homogeneous morphology (P < 0.001 and 0.03). Ktrans was not significantly different (P = 0.24 and 0.99). DATA CONCLUSION: Regions of prostate cancer lesions that are invisible on mpMRI have different histopathology features than visible regions. This may have implications for monitoring during active surveillance and focal treatment strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1235-1246.
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Multiparamétrica , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide the utility of repeat targeted (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) when monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) at 1-year of active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included 111 consecutive men with low-risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade 1) PCa, who received protocolled repeat MRI with or without TBx and repeat SBx at 1-year of AS. TBx was performed in Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3 lesions (MRI-positive men). Upgrading defined as ISUP Grade ≥2 PCa (I), Grade ≥2 with cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma PCa (II), and Grade ≥3 PCa (III) was investigated. Upgrading detected by TBx only (not by SBx) and SBx only (not by TBx) was investigated in MRI-positive and -negative men, and related to radiological progression on MRI (Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] score). RESULTS: Overall upgrading (I) was 32% (35/111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 48% (30/63) and 10% (5/48) (P < 0.001), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in 23% (seven of 30) by TBx only and in 33% (10/30) by SBx only. Radiological progression (PRECISE score 4-5) in MRI-positive men was seen in 27% (17/63). Upgrading (I) occurred in 41% (seven of 17) of these MRI-positive men, while this was 50% (23/46) in MRI-positive men without radiological progression (PRECISE score 1-3) (P = 0.534). Overall upgrading (II) was 15% (17/111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 22% (14/63) and 6% (three of 48) (P = 0.021), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in three of 14 by TBx only and in seven of 14 by SBx only. Overall upgrading (III) occurred in 5% (five of 111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 6% (four of 63) and 2% (one of 48) (P = 0.283), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in one of four by TBx only and in two of four by SBx only. CONCLUSION: Upgrading is significantly lower in MRI-negative compared to MRI-positive men with low-risk PCa at 1-year of AS. In serial MRI-negative men, the added value of repeat SBx at 1-year surveillance is limited and should be balanced individually against the harms. In serial MRI-positive men, the added value of repeat SBx is substantial. Based on this cohort, SBx is recommended to be performed in combination with TBx in all MRI-positive men at 1-year of AS, also when there is no radiological progression.
Assuntos
Biópsia/métodos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias/métodos , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Risk-based patient selection for systematic biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis has been adopted in daily clinical practice, either by clinical judgment and PSA testing, or using multivariate risk prediction tools. The use of multivariable risk prediction tools can significantly reduce unnecessary systematic biopsies, without compromising the detection of clinically significant disease. Increasingly multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is performed, not only in men with a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer after prior negative systematic biopsy, but also at initial screening before the first biopsy. The combination of MRI and multivariate risk prediction tools could potentially enhance prostate cancer diagnosis using multivariate MRI incorporated risk-based models to decide on the need for prostate MRI, but also using MRI results to adjusted risk-based models, and to guide MRI-directed biopsies. In this review, we discuss the diagnostic work-up for clinically significant prostate cancer, where the combination of MRI and multivariate risk prediction tools is integrated, and how together they can contribute to personalized diagnosis.