Search

Aim: Prostate biopsies are usually done with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in B-mode (B TRUS) but multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is the gold imaging standard for the visualization of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa), since a lowPCa detection rate is reported for B TRUS. The aim of this study was to assess the visibility of MRI lesions on B TRUS and to determine which factors may influence the visibility on B TRUS., Material and Methods: 142 men with 148 lesions reported on mpMRI underwent a B TRUS/mpMRI fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate and were included in this retrospective study. During the biopsy, images were obtained and stored in the institution's PACS. These images were reviewed by two radiologists to determine, whether an mpMRI lesion was or was not visible on B TRUS., Results: Overall 92 from 148 mpMRI lesions (62.2%) were visible on B TRUS. The location of the lesion in the prostate, the PIRADS classification of the lesions and the size of the lesion had no significant influence on the visibility on B TRUS. Only the prostate volume had a significant influence on visibility: in smaller prostates significantly more lesions were visible on B TRUS than in large glands (p+0.041; 45.1 ml vs 54 ml)., Conclusion: The use of newer high-end ultrasound units as well as experience gained from fusion biopsies enables us to see 62.2 % of all suspicious mpMRI lesions on B TRUS. B TRUS images merit a thorough examination during a conventional biopsy setting.

Introduction: Experience from interdisciplinary cooperation revealed the need for a prostate mapping scheme to communicate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings between radiologists, urologists, and pathologists, which should be detailed, yet easy to memorize. For this purpose, the 'Prostate interdisciplinary communication and mapping algorithm for biopsy and pathology' (PIC-MABP) was developed. This study evaluated the accuracy of the PIC-MABP system., Methods: PIC-MABP was tested and validated in findings of 10 randomly selected patients from routine clinical practise with 18 histologically proven cancer lesions. Patients received an mpMRI of the prostate prior to prostatectomy. After surgery the prostates were prepared as whole-mount step sections. Cancer lesions, which were found suspicious on mpMRI, were assigned to the according PIC-MABP sectors by a radiologist. MpMRI slides were masked and sent to seven urologists from different centres, providing only the PIC-MABP location of each lesion. Urologists marked the accordant regions. Then mpMRI slides were unmasked, and the correctness of each mark was evaluated., Results: One hundred and seventeen of the 126 marks (93%) were correctly assigned. Detection rates differed for lesions >0.5 cc compared with lesions <0.5 cc (p < 0.005): 3/7 (43%) marks were correctly assigned in lesions <0.3 cc, 16/21 (76%) in lesions with 0.3-0.5 cc, and 98/98 (100%) in lesions >0.5 cc. Interobserver agreement was good for lesions >0.5 cc and poor for lesions <0.3 cc (Fleiss Kappa 1 vs. 0.0175)., Conclusion: PIC-MABP seems to be a reliable system to communicate the location of mpMRI findings >0.5 cc between different disciplines and can be a useful guidance for cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy.

Purpose: To evaluate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion targeted biopsy (TB) of the prostate for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis., Patients and Methods: From April 2013 to January 2014, 53 men were included in this prospective single-centre study. The degree of PCa suspicion from mpMRI findings was classified according to the PI-RADS scoring system. Of these, 50 patients underwent both an mpMRI/TRUS fusion TB and a 10-core systematic biopsy (SB) of the prostate and were eligible for analysis., Results: 225 targeted and 500 systematic cores were included in this study. PCa was histologically confirmed in 52.0% of patients (26/50), whereas TB revealed PCa in 46.0% (23/50) and SB in 36.0% (18/50). TB identified PCa in 16.0% of all patients (8/50) that were missed by SB. All told, the targeted core was 2.8 times more likely to be PCa-positive than the systematic core (29.3 vs. 10.4%)., Conclusions: mpMRI/TRUS fusion TB of the prostate is safe, practicable and may improve PCa diagnosis using fewer biopsy cores compared to SB., (2015 S. Karger AG, Basel)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare prostate cancer detection rate of real-time elastography (RTE) with that of multiparametric MRI to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods., Subjects and Methods: Thirty-nine patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent both RTE and multiparametric MRI to localize prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy. RTE was performed to assess prostate tissue elasticity, and hard lesions were considered suspicious for prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI included T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), and contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) with an endorectal coil at 1.5 T. After radical prostatectomy, whole-mount step sections of the prostate were generated, and the prostate cancer detection rates with both modalities were analyzed for cancer lesions measuring 0.2 cm3 or larger., Results: Histopathologic examination revealed 61 cancer lesions. RTE depicted 39 of 50 cancer lesions (78.0%) in the peripheral zone and 2 of 11 (18.2%) in the transitional zone. Multiparametric MRI depicted 45 of 50 cancer lesions (90.0%) in the peripheral zone and 8 of 11 (72.7%) in the transitional zone. Significant differences between the two modalities were found for the transitional zone and anterior part in prostates with volumes greater than 40 cm3 (p<0.05). Detection rates for high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score≥4 and 3) and cancer lesions with volumes greater than 0.5 cm3 were high for both methods (93.8% and 80.5% for RTE, 87.5% and 92.7% for multiparametric MRI). Volumetric measurements of prostate cancer were more reliable with T2-weighted MRI than with RTE (Spearman rank correlation, 0.72 and 0.46)., Conclusion: RTE and multiparametric MRI depicted high-risk prostate cancer with high sensitivity. However, multiparametric MRI seems to have advantages in tumor volume assessment and for the detection of prostate cancer in the transitional zone and anterior part within prostates larger than 40 cm3.

Purpose: To evaluate the ESUR scoring system (PI-RADS) for multiparametric MRI of the prostate in clinical routine and to define a reliable way to generate an overall PI-RADS score., Methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients with a history of negative prebiopsies, who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI from October 2011 to April 2013 (n = 143): PI-RADS scores for each single modality were defined. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, an algorithm based approach summing up each single-modality score to a sum-score was compared to a more subjective approach, weighting the single modalities dependent on the radiologist's impression. Because of ongoing cancer suspicion 73 patients underwent targeted mpMRI-ultrasound image fusion rebiopsy. For this group thresholds for tumor incidences and malignancy were calculated., Results: 39 (53%) out of 73 targeted rebiopsies were cancer positive. The PI-RADS score correlated well with tumor incidence (AUC of 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94) and malignancy (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). Regarding the sum-score a threshold of ≥ 10 turned out to be reliable for cancer detection (sensitivity 90%, specificity 62%) and for ≥ 13 for indicating higher malignancy (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). To generate the overall PI-RADS score, the use of an algorithm based approach was more reliable than that of the approach based on the radiologist's impression., Conclusion: The presented scoring system correlates well with tumor incidence and malignancy. To generate the overall PI-RADS score, it seems to be advisable to use an algorithm based instead of a subjective approach.

Purpose: To investigate, if and how omitting gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) influences diagnostic accuracy and tumor detection rates of prostate MRI. Methods: In this retrospective study, 236 patients were included. The results of biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were compared using the PI-RADS version 2 scoring system. The distribution of lesions to PIRADS score levels, tumor detection rates, diagnostic accuracy and RoC analysis were calculated and compared to the results of histopathological analysis or 5-year follow-up for benign findings. Results: Omitting DCE changed PI-RADS scores in 9.75% of patients, increasing the number of PI-RADS 3 scores by 8.89% when compared to mpMRI. No change of more than one score level was observed. BpMRI did not show significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates. (AuC of 0.914 vs 0.917 in ROC analysis). Of 135 prostate carcinomas (PCa), 94.07% were scored identically, and 5.93% were downgraded only from PI-RADS 4 to PI-RADS 3 by bpMRI. All of them were low-grade PCa with Gleason Score 6 or 7a. No changes were observed for PCa ≥ 7b. Conclusion: Omitting DCE did not lead to significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates when using the PI-RADS 2 scoring system. According to these data, it seems reasonable to use a biparametric approach for initial routine prostate MRI. This could decrease examination time and reduce costs without significantly lowering the diagnostic accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Often PIRADS 3 findings are usually followed up with further MRIs of the prostate. Current guidelines do not state an optimal interval between the initial MRI and the follow-up MRI. The aim of this study was to find out if PIRADS 3 lesions evolve over time and to determine how long the optimal interval between initial MRI and follow-ups should be. Methods: In this retrospective study, 141 consecutive patients were included who underwent at least one follow-up MRI after an initial PIRADS 3 finding. Changes in PIRADS score and the interval between the first and the follow-up MRI were recorded. An optimal duration was calculated. Results: Of all patients, 76.6% had a change from PIRADS 3 to either 2 or 4 in the first follow-up MRI. Reclassifications to PIRADS 4 happened earlier than reclassifications to PIRADS 2 (after 366.5 ± 217.9 days and after 534.2 ± 253.0 days, respectively). An optimal point of time for a follow-up to distinguish between changes to PIRADS 2 versus PIRADS 4 turned out to be 379 days (12.4 months, AUC 0.734, p = 0.0001). Of all patients with a PIRADS 3 lesion 14.8% harboured a prostate carcinoma. Conclusion: Performing follow-up mpMRI rather than immediate biopsy may be beneficial for patients with PIRADS 3, as most lesions can be reclassified after a manageable period of time. Upgrades to PIRADS 4 seem to happen earlier and within fewer follow-ups than downgrades to PIRADS 2. The optimal interval for follow-up MRIs seems to be 12.4 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 1 (v1) and version 2 (v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Multiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy proven PCa, which had originally been evaluated according to PIRADS v1, were now retrospectively re-evaluated, comparing PI-RADS v1 and v2. MpMRI data were evaluated in comparison with histopathological whole-mount step-section slides. MRI examinations included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Results: Overall PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger discriminative ability of tumor detection: PI-RADS v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98) and v2 AUC 0.90 (95 % CI 0.86-0.94). For peripheral zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger ability of PCa discrimination: v1 AUC 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.99) and v2 AUC 0.92 (95 % CI 0.88-0.96). For transition zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed more discrimination: v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and v2 0.90 (95 % CI 0.83-0.97), but the difference was not significant. PI-RADS v2 resulted in significantly more false negative results (3 % in v1, 14 % in v2) and a comparable number of true positive results (82 % in v1, 80 % in v2). Conclusion: PI-RADS v2 uses a simplified approach, but shows a lower diagnostic accuracy. This could lead to a higher rate of false negative results with the risk of missing tumors within low PI-RADS score levels. Therefore, its use cannot be recommended unconditionally, and further improvement should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]