Search

The technical requirements for the acquisition of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate have been clearly outlined in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines, but there is still huge variability in image quality among centres across the world. It has been difficult to quantify what constitutes a good-quality image, and a first attempt to address this matter has been the publication of the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and its dedicated scoring sheet. This score includes the assessment of technical parameters that can be obtained from the DICOM files along with a visual evaluation of certain features on prostate MRI (e.g., anatomical structures). We retrospectively analysed the image quality of 10 scans from different vendors and magnets using a semiautomated dedicated PI-QUAL software program and compared the time needed for assessing image quality using two methods (semiautomated assessment versus manual filling of the scoring sheet). This semiautomated software is able to assess the technical parameters automatically, but the visual assessment is still performed by the radiologist. There was a significant reduction in the reporting time of prostate mpMRI quality according to PI-QUAL using the dedicated software program compared to manual filling (5′54″ versus 7′59″; p = 0.005). A semiautomated PI-QUAL software program allows the radiologist to assess the technical details related to the image quality of prostate mpMRI in a quick and reliable manner, allowing clinicians to have more confidence that the quality of mpMRI of the prostate is sufficient to determine patient care.

We use meteorological measurements from three drifting buoys to evaluate the performance of the ERA-Interim and ERA5 atmospheric reanalyses from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts over the Weddell Sea sea ice zone. The temporal variability in surface pressure and near-surface air temperature is captured well by the two reanalyses but both reanalyses exhibit a warm bias relative to the buoy measurements. This bias is small at temperatures close to 0 °C but reaches 5 – 10 °C at -40 °C. For two of the buoys the mean temperature bias in ERA5 is significantly smaller than that in ERA-Interim while for the third buoy the biases in the two products are comparable. 10 m wind speed biases in both reanalyses are small and may largely result from measurement errors associated with icing of the buoy anemometers. The biases in downwelling shortwave and longwave radiation are significant in both reanalyses but we caution that the pattern of bias is consistent with potential errors in the buoy measurements, caused by accumulation of snow and ice on the radiometers. Overall, our study suggests that, with the exception of near-surface temperature, both reanalyses reproduce the buoy measurements to within the limits of measurement uncertainty. We suggest that the significant biases in near-surface air temperature may result from the simplified representation of sea ice used in the reanalysis models, and we recommend the use of a more sophisticated representation of sea ice, including variable ice and snow thicknesses, in future reanalyses.

Item does not contain fulltext Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved. 01 januari 2023

Objectives The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Methods We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement. Results The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1–2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%). Conclusion We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted. Key Points • Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 – 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 – 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

Objectives To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). Patients and methods Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. Results Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. Conclusion This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.

IntroductionProstate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach.MethodsProstate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial.Trial registration numberNCT04571840.

The PRECISION trial was a multicentre randomised study that demonstrated that multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy is superior to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. The outcomes of studies reporting mpMRI-targeted biopsies are dependent on the quality of the mpMRI but there are currently no scoring systems available for evaluating this. We introduced a novel scoring system, the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score, to assess the quality of scans in the PRECISION trial. PI-QUAL is a score on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means that no mpMRI sequences are of diagnostic quality and 5 implies that each sequence is independently of optimal diagnostic quality. Fifty-eight out of 252 (23%) mpMRI scans chosen at random from each of the 22 centres in this trial were evaluated by two experienced radiologists from the coordinating trial centre, in consensus, blinded to pathology results. Overall, the mpMRI quality in the centres participating in PRECISION was good. MpMRI quality was of sufficient diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL ≥3) for 55 scans (95%) and of good or optimal diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL ≥4) for 35 scans (60%). Fifty-five out of 58 (95%) scans were of diagnostic quality for T2WI, followed by DWI (46/58 scans; 79%), and DCE (38/58 scans; 66%). Further validation of this scoring system is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we developed a scoring system (PI-QUAL) to assess the quality of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in prostate cancer detection. We used scans from 22 centres that participated in the PRECISION trial. Although there was room for improvement in images that used intravenous contrast, we found that mpMRI in the PRECISION trial was of sufficient diagnostic quality (PI-QUAL score ≥3) for 95% of the scans.

Background Although the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is of increasing interest, existing data are derived from small cohorts. Objective We describe clinical, histological, and radiological outcomes from an established AS programme, where protocol-based biopsies were omitted in favour of MRI-led monitoring. Design, setting, and participants Data on 672 men enrolled in AS between August 2004 and November 2017 (inclusion criteria: Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 localised prostate cancer, presenting prostate-specific antigen, Take Home Message We report excellent clinical outcomes from one of the largest imaging-based active surveillance cohorts to date. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible cancer at baseline, along with 3 + 4 Gleason grade, predicts a greater likelihood of treatment at five years. MRI-visible lesions appear to have a distinct clinical trajectory from less conspicuous ones.

Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is emerging as a novel therapeutic approach for patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease, in order to provide acceptable oncological control, whilst avoiding the side effects of radical treatment. Evidence regarding the ideal follow-up strategy and the significance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics after treatment is needed. In this study, we aimed to assess the value of the percentage of PSA reduction (%PSA reduction) after FT in predicting the likelihood of any additional treatment or any radical treatment. We retrospectively analysed a multicentre cohort of 703 men receiving FT for low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Overall, the rates of any additional treatment and any radical treatment were 30% and 13%, respectively. The median follow-up period was 41 mo. The median %PSA reduction after FT was 73%. At Cox multivariable analysis, %PSA reduction was an independent predictor of any additional treatment (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.96; p 90%, the probability of any additional treatment within 5 yr was 20%. Conversely, for %PSA reduction of

Context Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detects most, but not all, clinically significant prostate cancer. The genetic basis of prostate cancer visibility and invisibility on mpMRI remains uncertain. Objective To systematically review the literature on differential gene expression between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible prostate cancer, and to use bioinformatic analysis to identify enriched processes or cellular components in genes validated in more than one study. Evidence acquisition We performed a systematic literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to January 2020 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary endpoint was differential genetic features between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible tumours. Secondary endpoints were explanatory links between gene function and mpMRI conspicuity, and the prognostic value of differential gene enrichment. Evidence synthesis We retrieved 445 articles, of which 32 met the criteria for inclusion. Thematic synthesis from the included studies showed that mpMRI-visible cancer tended towards enrichment of molecular features associated with increased disease aggressivity, including phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) loss and higher genomic classifier scores, such as Oncotype and Decipher. Three of the included studies had accompanying publicly available data suitable for further bioinformatic analysis. An over-representation analysis of these datasets revealed increased expression of genes associated with extracellular matrix components in mpMRI-visible tumours. Conclusions Prostate cancer that is visible on mpMRI is generally enriched with molecular features of tumour development and aggressivity, including activation of proliferative signalling, DNA damage, and inflammatory processes. Additionally, there appears to be concordant cellular components and biological processes associated with mpMRI conspicuity, as highlighted by bioinformatic analysis of large genetic datasets. Patient summary Prostate cancer that is detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tends to have genetic features that are associated with more aggressive disease. This suggests that MRI can be used to assess the likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, based on tumour visibility., Take Home Message The genomic evidence surrounding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) visibility is varied and often discordant; however, the literature suggests that tumour mpMRI visibility correlates with aggressive genomic features.

Objectives The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is a new metric to evaluate the diagnostic quality of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate. This study assesses the impact of an intervention, namely a prostate MRI quality training lecture, on the participant’s ability to apply PI-QUAL. Methods Sixteen participants (radiologists, urologists, physicists, and computer scientists) of varying experience in reviewing diagnostic prostate MRI all assessed the image quality of ten examinations from different vendors and machines. Then, they attended a dedicated lecture followed by a hands-on workshop on MRI quality assessment using the PI-QUAL score. Five scans assessed by the participants were evaluated in the workshop using the PI-QUAL score for teaching purposes. After the course, the same participants evaluated the image quality of a new set of ten scans applying the PI-QUAL score. Results were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The reference standard was the PI-QUAL score assessed by one of the developers of PI-QUAL. Results There was a significant improvement in average area under the curve for the evaluation of image quality from baseline (0.59 [95 % confidence intervals: 0.50–0.66]) to post-teaching (0.96 [0.92–0.98]), an improvement of 0.37 [0.21–0.41] (p < 0.001). Conclusions A teaching course (dedicated lecture + hands-on workshop) on PI-QUAL significantly improved the application of this scoring system to assess the quality of prostate MRI examinations. Key Points • A significant improvement in the application of PI-QUAL for the assessment of prostate MR image quality was observed after an educational intervention. • Appropriate training on image quality can be delivered to those involved in the acquisition and interpretation of prostate MRI. • Further investigation will be needed to understand the impact on improving the acquisition of high-quality diagnostic prostate MR examinations.

Objectives We aimed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria for magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) at two different academic centres. Methods The PRECISE criteria score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. The system is a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 or 2 implies regression of a previously visible lesion, 3 denotes stability and 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients (40 from each centre) on AS with a biopsy-confirmed low- or intermediate-risk PCa (i.e. ≤ Gleason 3 + 4 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 20 ng/ml) and ≥ 2 prostate MR scans was performed. Two blinded radiologists reported all scans independently and scored the likelihood of radiological change (PRECISE score) from the second scan onwards. Cohen’s κ coefficients and percent agreement were computed. Results Agreement was substantial both at a per-patient and a per-scan level (κ = 0.71 and 0.61; percent agreement = 79% and 81%, respectively) for each PRECISE score. The agreement was superior (κ = 0.83 and 0.67; percent agreement = 90% and 91%, respectively) when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1–3 vs 4–5). Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at University College London (UCL) (κ = 0.81 vs 0.55 on a per-patient level and κ = 0.70 vs 0.48 on a per-scan level, respectively). The discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement (80% vs 78% and 86% vs 75%, respectively). Conclusions Expert radiologists achieved substantial reproducibility for the PRECISE scoring system, especially when data were pooled together according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1–3 vs 4–5). Key Points • Inter-reader agreement between two experienced prostate radiologists using the PRECISE criteria was substantial. • The agreement was higher when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (i.e. PRECISE 1–3 vs PRECISE 4 and 5). • Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at UCL, but the discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is an effective cure for organ confined prostate cancer but is associated with considerable post-operative functional toxicity. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section analysis of the neurovascular structure adjacent margin) may help improve functional outcomes by promoting safe nerve-sparing (NS) RARP without compromising on oncological outcomes. NeuroSAFE technique has reported favourably in retrospective, single-centre studies but has never been evaluated prospectively by a randomised study. The NeuroSAFE PROOF Feasibility Study has succeeded in demonstrating feasibility and has facilitated opening of the full-scale, definitively powered NeuroSAFE Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (NCT03317990). We report on the design and progress of the full NeuroSAFE PROOF RCT. METHODS: Potent men (IIEF-5>21) with localised prostate cancer at 4 regional uro-oncology centres in the UK (UCLH, Bristol, Sheffield and Glasgow) are eligible. Participants are randomised 1:1 to RARP with NS decision guided by standard of care (clinical information, DRE and pre-operative mpMRI surgical plan) vs. RARP with NS decision guided by standard of care information and the NeuroSAFE technique. The primary outcome is erectile function recovery assessed by IIEF-5 score >15 at 12-months. Important secondary outcomes include detailed peri-operative outcomes, histological outcomes, post-operative complications, biochemical recurrence rates, urinary continence (assessed by ICIQ), and health related quality of life (assessed by Rand-36 and EQ-5D-5L). Aiming to demonstrate a difference of 15% in erectile function recovery rates between the arms, a total of 404 men will need to be randomised and treated. Patients will continue to be followed for outcomes until 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: At the time of writing, 159 men have been recruited and treated with RARP as per random allocation at the 4 participating sites. The independent DMC has met thrice to ensure the oncological safety of the trial and will continue to review the data at intervals. Covid-19 has led to significant challenges, including suspension of recruitment and difficulties performing follow-up. The trial team have developed new methods of recruitment, consent and follow-up to ensure conduct of the study remains in line with the highest standards of trial conduct. CONCLUSIONS: The NeuroSAFE technique has been reported as a method to optimise outcomes for men undergoing RARP for over a decade, but, in the absence of level 1 evidence, equipoise remains. We hope that our full trial (the first RCT of the NeuroSAFE technique in the world) will provide the evidence to establish whether what has long been a promising technique truly improves outcomes for men undergoing RP.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in lesion volume on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 160 patients with a targeted biopsy-confirmed visible lesion on mpMRI, stratified by low- and intermediate-risk disease (Gleason Grade Group 1 vs Gleason Grade Group 2), were analysed. The % change per year was calculated using the formula: [(final volume/initial volume) exp (1/interval between scans in years)]-1. Results: There was no significant difference in the annual median percentage change between Gleason Grade Group 1 (18%) and Gleason Grade Group 2 (23%) disease (p = 0.16), and between ≤ 10% (23%) and > 10% (22%) of Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.78). Assuming a spherical lesion, these changes corresponded to annual increases in mean tumour diameter of 6% and 7% for Gleason Grade Group 1 and Gleason Grade Group 2 respectively, which may be less than the interscan variability of serial mpMRI. Conclusion: In an active surveillance cohort, we did not see a significant difference in the annual growth rate of Gleason Grade Group 1 and 2 tumours. Advances in knowledge: In patients on active surveillance, the measured growth rates for visible tumours in Gleason Grade Groups 1 and 2 were similar. The annual growth rate was small in most cases and this may have implications for the MRI follow-up interval in active surveillance.

International audience; Histone Gene Cluster 1 Member E, HIST1H1E, encodes Histone H1.4, is one of a family of epigenetic regulator genes, acts as a linker histone protein, and is responsible for higher order chromatin structure. HIST1H1E syndrome (also known as Rahman syndrome, OMIM #617537) is a recently described intellectual disability (ID) syndrome. Since the initial description of five unrelated individuals with three different heterozygous protein-truncating variants (PTVs) in the HIST1H1E gene in 2017, we have recruited 30 patients, all with HIST1H1E PTVs that result in the same shift in frame and that cluster to a 94-base pair region in the HIST1H1E carboxy terminal domain. The identification of 30 patients with HIST1H1E variants has allowed the clarification of the HIST1H1E syndrome phenotype. Major findings include an ID and a recognizable facial appearance. ID was reported in all patients and is most frequently of moderate severity. The facial gestalt consists of a high frontal hairline and full lower cheeks in early childhood and, in later childhood and adulthood, affected individuals have a strikingly high frontal hairline, frontal bossing, and deep-set eyes. Other associated clinical features include hypothyroidism, abnormal dentition, behavioral issues, cryptorchidism, skeletal anomalies, and cardiac anomalies. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently abnormal with a slender corpus callosum a frequent finding.

The current diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer has resulted in overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment as well as underdiagnosis and missed diagnoses in many men. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has been identified as a test that could mitigate these diagnostic errors. The performance of mpMRI can vary depending on the population being studied, the execution of the MRI itself, the experience of the radiologist, whether additional biomarkers are considered and whether mpMRI-targeted biopsy is carried out alone or in addition to systematic biopsy. A number of challenges to implementation remain, such as ensuring high-quality execution and reporting of mpMRI and ensuring that this diagnostic pathway is cost-effective. Nevertheless, emerging clinical trial data support the adoption of this technology as part of the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Objective The purpose of this study was: To test whether machine learning classifiers for transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ) can correctly classify prostate tumors into those with/without a Gleason 4 component, and to compare the performance of the best performing classifiers against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data was performed at a single center between 2012 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were (i) 3-T mp-MRI compliant with international guidelines, (ii) Likert ≥ 3/5 lesion, (iii) transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy confirming cancer ≥ Gleason 3 + 3. Index lesions from 164 men were analyzed (119 PZ, 45 TZ). Quantitative MRI and clinical features were used and zone-specific machine learning classifiers were constructed. Models were validated using a fivefold cross-validation and a temporally separated patient cohort. Classifier performance was compared against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. Results The best PZ classifier trained with prostate-specific antigen density, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and maximum enhancement (ME) on DCE-MRI obtained a ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 following fivefold cross-validation. Diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity was higher for the best PZ model (0.93) when compared with the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.72). The best TZ model used ADC and ME to obtain an AUC of 0.75 following fivefold cross-validation. This achieved higher diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity (0.88) than the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.82). Conclusions Machine learning classifiers predict Gleason pattern 4 in prostate tumors better than radiologists. Key Points • Predictive models developed from quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regarding the characterization of prostate cancer grade should be zone-specific. • Classifiers trained differently for peripheral and transition zone can predict a Gleason 4 component with a higher performance than the subjective opinion of experienced radiologists. • Classifiers would be particularly useful in the context of active surveillance, whereby decisions regarding whether to biopsy are necessitated.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients with Gleason 3 + 4 cancer on transrectal biopsy are upgraded after undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy and whether this has implications for current clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis we examined 107 consecutive patients presenting at a single tertiary referral centre (July 2012 to July 2016) with prostate cancer of Gleason score 3 + 4 on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided systematic non-targeted biopsy who then underwent a multiparametric MRI followed by MRI-targeted transperineal prostate biopsy for accurate risk stratification and localization. RESULTS: The patients' mean (sd) age was 67.0 (8.0) years, and they had a median (interquartile range) PSA concentration of 6.2 (4.7-9.6) ng/mL. Of the 107 patients, 84 (78.5%) had Gleason 3 + 4 on both transrectal systematic biopsy and transperineal MRI-targeted biopsy. Nineteen patients (17.8%) were upgraded to Gleason 4 + 3, three patients (3.0%) to Gleason 4 + 4 and one patient (1.0%) to Gleason 4 + 5. These differences were significant (P = 0.0006). Likewise, 23/107 patients (22%) had higher-risk disease based on their targeted biopsies. CONCLUSION: The use of targeted biopsy in men with impalpable cancer, ultimately upgraded one in five patients from favourable-intermediate- to unfavourable-intermediate-risk disease or worse. This has significant clinical implications for men considering active surveillance or radical treatment. Our risk calculators must now be validated using these data from targeted biopsy as the technique becomes widely adopted.

We describe the pathological characteristics of recurrence following high intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation in men treated with salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. We assessed the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging before salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in these men.A total of 35 men underwent salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after high intensity focused ultrasound partial ablation from 2012 to 2018. We compared clinicopathological characteristics before ultrasound and before salvage prostatectomy after ultrasound to histopathology on salvage prostatectomy. We assessed infield recurrence, out of field disease, positive surgical margins and magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity before salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Before high intensity focused ultrasound 55.9% of men had multifocal disease and 47.1% had Gleason 3 + 3 disease outside the treatment field. Median time to salvage prostatectomy was 16 months (IQR 11-26). Indications for salvage prostatectomy were infield recurrence in 55.8% of cases, out of field recurrence in 20.6%, and infield and out of field recurrence in 23.5%. On salvage prostatectomy histopathology revealed significant cancer, defined as ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) 2 or greater, infield in 97.1% of cases, out of field in 81.3%, and infield and out of field in 79.4%. Of the cases 82.4% were adversely reclassified at salvage prostatectomy compared to 67.6% before ultrasound. The positive surgical margin rate was 40.0%. Of the positive margins 84.6% were in the region of previous ultrasound despite wide excision, including pT2 in 28.6%, pT3 in 47.6% and size 3 mm or greater, pT3 or multifocal (ie significant) in 31.4%. After ultrasound the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging for infield and out of field recurrence was 81.8% and 60.7%, respectively.Salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy may confer a higher risk of positive surgical margins, upgrading and up-staging than primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. High intensity focused ultrasound carries a risk of recurrence inside and outside the ablation zone. This information may inform salvage surgical planning and patient counseling regarding the choice of initial therapy and salvage treatment after high intensity focused ultrasound.

To assess multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) characteristics in prostate cancer (PCa) before and after irreversible electroporation (IRE) and to investigate their correlation with the presence of post-operative recurrence of PCa.MpMRI was performed in 30 men with PCa prior to treatment, after 10 days and at 6 months. An additional scan at 1 year was available for 18 men. Two radiologists assessed retrospectively the following parameters by planimetry: tumour volume, necrotic volume (early post-treatment scan) and residual fibrosis. Residual tumour/recurrence were defined as a suspicious area within the treatment field scored ≥ 4 on a 1-to-5 scale. Oncological outcome was also assessed.The median follow-up of the entire study was 16 months. Six men were undertreated and showed mpMRI recurrence after 6 months. At 1-year, three additional men had recurrence. Overall, four of these 9 men (44%) were retreated. The other five men did not receive any further treatment. Median time to re-treatment was 15 months. Median pre-treatment lesion volume was 0.65 cc, 0.66 cc and 0.43 cc on the different mpMRI sequences (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging). Median necrotic volume was 10.77 cc. Median overall residual fibrosis volumes were 0.84 cc and 0.95 cc at 6-month and 1-year mpMRI. Pre-treatment, necrotic and residual fibrosis volumes were significantly different (p 0.001). Pre-treatment tumour volumes on diffusion-weighted imaging and necrotic volumes were correlated (r = 0.18; p = 0.02).MpMRI is able to visualise the IRE ablation effects in men with PCa. MpMRI-derived parameters - such as tumour, necrotic and fibrosis volumes - can be measured and are potentially useful for assessing efficacy in the medium term, as with other ablative techniques.

Funder: North East London Cancer Alliance, Funder: KCL/UCL Comprehensive Cancer Imaging Centre, Funder: UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, Objectives: National guidelines recommend prostate multiparametric (mp) MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer before biopsy. In this study, we explore prostate mpMRI protocols across 14 London hospitals and determine whether standardisation improves diagnostic quality. Methods: An MRI physicist facilitated mpMRI set-up across several regional hospitals, working together with experienced uroradiologists who judged diagnostic quality. Radiologists from the 14 hospitals participated in the assessment and optimisation of prostate mpMRI image quality, assessed according to both PiRADSv2 recommendations and on the ability to “rule in” and/or “rule out” prostate cancer. Image quality and sequence parameters of representative mpMRI scans were evaluated across 23 MR scanners. Optimisation visits were performed to improve image quality, and 2 radiologists scored the image quality pre- and post-optimisation. Results: 20/23 mpMRI protocols, consisting of 111 sequences, were optimised by modifying their sequence parameters. Pre-optimisation, only 15% of T2W images were non-diagnostic, whereas 40% of ADC maps, 50% of high b-value DWI and 41% of DCE-MRI were considered non-diagnostic. Post-optimisation, the scores were increased with 80% of ADC maps, 74% of high b-value DWI and 88% of DCE-MRI to be partially or fully diagnostic. T2W sequences were not optimised, due to their higher baseline quality scores. Conclusions: Targeted intervention at a regional level can improve the diagnostic quality of prostate mpMRI protocols, with implications for improving prostate cancer detection rates and targeted biopsies.

Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged &lt, 50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing.

Global atmospheric reanalyses are frequently used to drive ocean-ice models but few data are available to assess the quality of these products in the Antarctic sea ice zone. We utilise measurements from three drifting buoys that were deployed on sea ice in the southern Weddell Sea in the austral summer of 2016 to validate the representation of near-surface atmospheric conditions in the ERA-Interim and ERA5 reanalyses produced by the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). The buoys carried sensors to measure atmospheric pressure, air temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, and downwelling shortwave and longwave radiation. One buoy remained in coastal fast ice for most of 2016 while the other two drifted northward through the austral winter and exited the pack ice during the following austral summer. Comparison of buoy measurements with reanalysis data indicates that both reanalyses represent the surface pressure field in this region accurately. Reanalysis temperatures are, however, biased warm by around 2 °C in both products, with the largest biases seen at the lowest temperatures. We suggest that this bias is a result of the simplified representation of sea ice in the reanalyses, in particular the lack of an insulating snow layer on top of the ice. We use a simple surface energy balance model to investigate the impact of the reanalysis biases on sea ice thermodynamics.

Background Two million non-emergency surgeries are being cancelled globally every week due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have a major impact on patients and healthcare systems. Methods During the peak of the pandemic in the United Kingdom, we set up a multicentre cancer network amongst 14 National Health Service institutions, performing urological, thoracic, gynaecological and general surgical urgent and cancer operations at a central COVID-19 cold site. This is a cohort study of 500 consecutive patients undergoing surgery in this network. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and post-operative complications at 30-days. Results 500 patients underwent surgery with median age 62.5 (IQR 51–71). 65% were male, 60% had a known diagnosis of cancer and 61% of surgeries were considered complex or major. No patient died from COVID-19 at 30-days. 30-day all-cause mortality was 3/500 (1%). 10 (2%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 4 (1%) with confirmed laboratory diagnosis and 6 (1%) with probable COVID-19. 33/500 (7%) of patients developed Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications, with 1/33 (3%) occurring in a patient with COVID-19. Conclusion It is safe to continue cancer and urgent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate service reconfiguration., Highlights • Priority surgeries are being cancelled every week due to the COVID-19 pandemic. • A multicentre surgical referral network was set up as part of an NHS England approach to continuing safe surgery • The referral network consisted of 14 NHS trusts and surgery was performed at a single COVID-19 ‘cold site’. • After 500 surgeries performed, there was a 0% 30-day mortality from COVID-19. • It is safe to continue cancer and priority surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate service reconfiguration.