Search

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., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed., Objective: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021., Evidence Synthesis: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy., Conclusions: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers., Patient Summary: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining widespread acceptance in prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis and improves significant PC (sPC; Gleason score≥3+4) detection. Decision making based on European Randomised Study of Screening for PC (ERSPC) risk-calculator (RC) parameters may overcome prostate-specific antigen (PSA) limitations., Objective: We added pre-biopsy mpMRI to ERSPC-RC parameters and developed risk models (RMs) to predict individual sPC risk for biopsy-naïve men and men after previous biopsy., Design, Setting, and Participants: We retrospectively analyzed clinical parameters of 1159 men who underwent mpMRI prior to MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy between 2012 and 2015., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine significant sPC predictors for RM development. The prediction performance was compared with ERSPC-RCs, RCs refitted on our cohort, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v1.0, and ERSPC-RC plus PI-RADSv1.0 using receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs). Discrimination and calibration of the RM, as well as net decision and reduction curve analyses were evaluated based on resampling methods., Results and Limitations: PSA, prostate volume, digital-rectal examination, and PI-RADS were significant sPC predictors and included in the RMs together with age. The ROC area under the curve of the RM for biopsy-naïve men was comparable with ERSPC-RC3 plus PI-RADSv1.0 (0.83 vs 0.84) but larger compared with ERSPC-RC3 (0.81), refitted RC3 (0.80), and PI-RADS (0.76). For postbiopsy men, the novel RM's discrimination (0.81) was higher, compared with PI-RADS (0.78), ERSPC-RC4 (0.66), refitted RC4 (0.76), and ERSPC-RC4 plus PI-RADSv1.0 (0.78). Both RM benefits exceeded those of ERSPC-RCs and PI-RADS in the decision regarding which patient to receive biopsy and enabled the highest reduction rate of unnecessary biopsies. Limitations include a monocentric design and a lack of PI-RADSv2.0., Conclusions: The novel RMs, incorporating clinical parameters and PI-RADS, performed significantly better compared with RMs without PI-RADS and provided measurable benefit in making the decision to biopsy men at a suspicion of PC. For biopsy-naïve patients, both our RM and ERSPC-RC3 plus PI-RADSv1.0 exceeded the prediction performance compared with clinical parameters alone., Patient Summary: Combined risk models including clinical and imaging parameters predict clinically relevant prostate cancer significantly better than clinical risk calculators and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging alone. The risk models demonstrate a benefit in making a decision about which patient needs a biopsy and concurrently help avoid unnecessary biopsies., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI fusion targeted biopsy (FTB) detect significant prostate cancer (sPCa) more accurately than conventional biopsies alone., Objective: To evaluate the detection accuracy of mpMRI and FTB on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen., Design, Setting and Participants: From a cohort of 755 men who underwent transperineal MRI and transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy under general anesthesia between 2012 and 2014, we retrospectively analyzed 120 consecutive patients who had subsequent RP. All received saturation biopsy (SB) in addition to FTB of lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥2., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The index lesion was defined as the lesion with extraprostatic extension, the highest Gleason score (GS), or the largest tumor volume (TV) if GS were the same, in order of priority. GS 3+3 and TV ≥1.3ml or GS ≥3+4 and TV ≥0.55ml were considered sPCa. We assessed the detection accuracy by mpMRI and different biopsy approaches and analyzed lesion agreement between mpMRI and RP specimen., Results and Limitations: Overall, 120 index and 71 nonindex lesions were detected. Overall, 107 (89%) index and 51 (72%) nonindex lesions harbored sPCa. MpMRI detected 110 of 120 (92%) index lesions, FTB (two cores per lesion) alone diagnosed 96 of 120 (80%) index lesions, and SB alone diagnosed 110 of 120 (92%) index lesions. Combined SB and FTB detected 115 of 120 (96%) index foci. FTB performed significantly less accurately compared with mpMRI (p=0.02) and the combination for index lesion detection (p=0.002). Combined FTB and SB detected 97% of all sPCa lesions and was superior to mpMRI (85%), FTB (79%), and SB (88%) alone (p<0.001 each). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for index lesion agreement between mpMRI and RP was 0.87 (p<0.001). Limitations included the retrospective design, multiple operators, and nonblinding of radiologists., Conclusions: MpMRI identified 92% of index lesions compared with RP histopathology. The combination of FTB and SB was superior to both approaches alone, reliably detecting 97% of sPCa lesions., Patient Summary: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging detects the index lesion accurately in 9 of 10 patients; however, the combined biopsy approach, while missing less significant cancer, comes at the cost of detecting more insignificant cancer., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)