PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

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. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.

The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.

Therapeutic outcomes and analysis of Doppler findings in 25 patients with non-ischemic priapism.

Non-ischemic priapism (NiP) is painless partial tumescence caused by genital trauma and the formation of intracorporal arterio-venous fistula. This is a retrospective study of 25 men with NiP and reports the long-term erectile function and colour doppler ultrasound (CDUS) findings after treatment for NiP. Unstimulated CDUS was performed at diagnosis, 1 week and at last follow-up after treatment. CDUS traces were analysed: peak systolic velocity (PSV), end diastolic velocity (EDV), resistive index (RI) and mean velocity (MV) were calculated. Erectile function was assessed using the IIEF-EF questionnaire. At the last follow-up (median 24 months), 16 men had normal erectile function (64%): median IIEF-EF score 29 (IQR 28.5-30; σ2 2.78) and nine had erectile dysfunction (36%): median IIEF-EF score 17 (IQR 14-22; σ2 33.6). MV and EDV were statistically higher in those patients with erectile dysfunction at last follow-up compared to patients with normal erectile function: median MV 5.3 cm/s (IQR 2.4-10.5 cm/s; σ2 34) vs 2.95 cm/s (IQR 1.03-3.95; σ2 3.4) p < 0.002 and median EDV 4.0 cm/s (IQR 1.5-8.0; σ2 14.7) vs 0 cm/s (IQR 0-1.75; σ2 2.21) p < 0.004. Erectile dysfunction was observed in 36% of men treated for NiP and was associated with abnormal low resistance resting CDUS waveforms. Further investigation for persistent arteriovenous fistulation should be considered in these patients.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI.

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Use of artificial intelligence in the detection of primary prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI with its clinical outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has transformed the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, allowing for improved risk stratification and more targeted subsequent management. However, concerns exist over the interobserver variability of images and the applicability of this model long term, especially considering the current shortage of radiologists and the growing ageing population. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into clinical practice to support diagnostic and therapeutic imaging analysis to overcome these concerns. The following report details a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the accuracy of AI in predicting primary prostate cancer on mpMRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. All relevant articles published between January 2016 and February 2023 will be eligible for inclusion. To be included, articles must use AI to study MRI prostate images to detect prostate cancer. All included articles will be in full-text, reporting original data and written in English. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. The QUADAS-2 score will assess the quality and risk of bias across selected studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293745.

A semi-automated software program to assess the impact of second reads in prostate MRI for equivocal lesions: results from a UK tertiary referral centre.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) second read using a semi-automated software program in the one-stop clinic, where patients undergo multiparametric MRI, review and biopsy planning in one visit. We looked at concordance between readers for patients with equivocal scans and the possibility for biopsy deferral in this group. METHODS: We present data from 664 consecutive patients. Scans were reported by seven different expert genitourinary radiologists using dedicated software (MIM®) and a Likert scale. All scans were rescored by another expert genitourinary radiologist using a customised workflow for second reads that includes annotated biopsy contours for accurate visual targeting. The number of scans in which a biopsy could have been deferred using biopsy results and prostate specific antigen density was assessed. Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 was considered clinically significant disease. Concordance between first and second reads for equivocal scans (Likert 3) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 209/664 (31%) patients scored Likert 3 on first read, 128 of which (61%) were concordant after second read. 103/209 (49%) of patients with Likert 3 scans were biopsied, with clinically significant disease in 31 (30%) cases. Considering Likert 3 scans that were both downgraded and biopsied using the workflow-generated biopsy contours, 25/103 (24%) biopsies could have been deferred. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a semi-automated workflow for accurate lesion contouring and targeting biopsies is helpful during the one-stop clinic. We observed a reduction of indeterminate scans after second reading and almost a quarter of biopsies could have been deferred, reducing the potential biopsy-related side effects.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Follow-up of Targeted Biopsy-negative Prostate Lesions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal radiological follow-up of prostate lesions negative on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) is yet to be optimised. OBJECTIVE: To present medium-term radiological and clinical follow-up of biopsy-negative lesions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The records for men who underwent multiparametric MRI at the UCLH one-stop clinic for suspected prostate cancer between September 2017 and March 2020 were reviewed (n = 1199). Patients with Likert 4 or 5 lesions were considered (n = 495), and those with a subsequent negative MRI-TB comprised the final study population (n = 91). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Baseline and follow-up MRI and biopsy data (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostate volume, radiological scores, and presence of any noncancerous pathology) were extracted from reports. The last follow-up date was the date of the last test or review in clinic. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 1.8 yr (656 d, interquartile range [IQR] 359-1008). At baseline, the median age was 65.4 yr (IQR 60.7-70.0), median PSA was 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 4.7-10.0), median prostate volume was 54 ml (IQR 39.5-75.0), and median PSA density (PSAD) was 0.13 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.09-0.18). Eighty-six men (95%) had Likert 4 lesions, while the remaining five (5%) had Likert 5 lesions. Only 21 men (23%) had a single lesion; most had at least two. Atrophy was the most prevalent pathology on MRI-TB, present in 64 men (74%), and followed by acute inflammation in 42 (46%), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in 33 (36%), chronic inflammation in 18 (20%), atypia in 13 (14%), and granulomatous inflammation in three (3%). Fifty-eight men had a second MRI study (median 376 d, IQR 361-412). At the second MRI, median PSAD decreased to 0.11 ng/ml2 (IQR 0.08-0.18). A Likert 4 or 5 score persisted only in five men (9%); 40 men (69%) were scored Likert 3, while the remaining 13 (22%) were scored Likert 2 (no lesion). Of 45 men with a Likert ≥3 score, most only had one lesion at the second MRI (28 men; 62%). Of six men with repeat MRI-TB during the study period, two were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer and both had persistent Likert 4 scores (at baseline and at least one follow-up MRI). CONCLUSIONS: Most biopsy-negative MRI lesions in the prostate resolve over time, but any persistent lesions should be closely monitored. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lesions in the prostate detected via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans that are negative for cancer on biopsy usually resolve. Repeat MRI can indicate persistent lesions that might need a second biopsy.

Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial.

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

Promoting the use of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

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.

Diagnostic potential of radiological apical tumor involvement.

We commend Veerman et al. for investigating the diagnostic performance of radiological apical tumor involvement (radATI) in preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer. This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI to detect pathological ATI (pathATI) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy specimens. They found patients with radATI more likely to develop biochemical recurrence (BCR), p = 0.003, and have apical positive surgical margins (APSM), p = 0.004. We believe that the author's acknowledgement of the relationship between tumor location and cancer risk is an important step in the classification of prostate cancer. An important question that is under addressed is, what is it about apical tumors that carry additional risk? Higher rates of PSM due to incomplete surgical excision may contribute to increased recurrence risk in the apex. If this is the case, surgical management must be tailored by a tumor location-based risk assessment. The literature suggests that a single APSM may be clinically insignificant for long-term outcomes. Conversely, the authors also recommend radATI be treated with reduced apical nerve sparing to avoid APSM. We believe that this approach may lead to overtreatment in the presence of an otherwise good prognosis. We believe the extent of APSMs upon diagnosis would be an interesting topic for further investigation. The authors may also wish to perform multivariable analysis for the effect of radATI on BCR. We believe that MRI may play a critical role in enhancing diagnosis and prognostication of prostate cancer.

Management of small testicular masses: outcomes from a single-centre specialist multidisciplinary team.

OBJECTIVES: To report the management outcomes of men with ≤20-mm small testicular masses (STMs) and to identify clinical and histopathological factors associated with malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men managed at a single centre between January 2010 and December 2020 with a STM ≤20 mm in size was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 307 men with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 36 (30-44) years were included. Of these, 161 (52.4%), 82 (26.7%), 62 (20.2%) and 2 men (0.7%) underwent surveillance with interval ultrasonography (USS), primary excisional testicular biopsy (TBx) or primary radical orchidectomy (RO), or were discharged, respectively. The median (IQR) surveillance duration was 6 (3-18) months. The majority of men who underwent surveillance had lesions <5 mm (59.0%) and no lesion vascularity (67.1%) on USS. Thirty-three (20.5%) men undergoing surveillance had a TBx based on changes on interval USS or patient choice; seven (21.2%) were found to be malignant. The overall rate of malignancy in the surveillance cohort was 4.3%. The majority of men who underwent primary RO had lesions ≥10 mm (85.5%) and the presence of vascularity (61.7%) on USS. Nineteen men (23.2%) who underwent primary TBx (median lesion size 6 mm) had a malignancy confirmed on biopsy and underwent RO. A total of 88 men (28.7%) underwent RO, and malignancy was confirmed in 73 (83.0%) of them. The overall malignancy rate in the whole STM cohort was 23.8%. Malignant RO specimens had significantly larger lesion sizes (median [IQR] 11 [8-15] mm, vs benign: median [IQR] 8 [5-10] mm; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Small testicular masses can be stratified and managed based on lesion size and USS features. The overall malignancy rate in men with an STM was 23.8% (4.3% in the surveillance group). Surveillance should be considered in lesions <10 mm in size, with a TBx or frozen-section examination offered prior to RO in order to preserve testicular function.

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron-Emission Tomography Imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven utility in diagnosing primary prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA PET) has yet to be established. This study aims to systematically review the current literature comparing the diagnostic performance of mpMRI and PSMA PET imaging to diagnose primary prostate cancer. A systematic literature search was performed up to December 2021. Quality analyses were conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Statistical analysis involved the pooling of the reported diagnostic performances of each modality, and differences in per-patient and per-lesion analysis were compared using a Fisher's exact test. Ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. At a per-patient level, the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83−0.91) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90−0.96, p < 0.01); 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23−0.71) vs. 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23−0.84, p > 0.05); and 0.84 vs. 0.91, respectively. At a per-lesion level, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC value for mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT were lower, at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.52−0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62−0.92, p < 0.001); 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81−0.95) vs. 0.71 (95% CI: 0.47−0.90, p < 0.05); and 0.83 vs. 0.84, respectively. High heterogeneity was observed between studies. PSMA PET/CT may better confirm the presence of prostate cancer than mpMRI. However, both modalities appear comparable in determining the localisation of the lesions.

Promoting the use of the PRECISE score for prostate MRI during active surveillance: results from the ESOR Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis teaching fellowship.

OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE criteria for serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate during active surveillance recommend the use of a dedicated scoring system (PRECISE score) to assess the likelihood of clinically significant radiological change. This pilot study assesses the effect of an interactive teaching course on prostate MRI during active surveillance in assessing radiological change in serial imaging. METHODS: Eleven radiology fellows and registrars with different experience in prostate MRI reading participated in a dedicated teaching course where they initially evaluated radiological change (based on their previous training in prostate MRI reading) independently in fifteen patients on active surveillance (baseline and follow-up scan), and then attended a lecture on the PRECISE score. The initial scans were reviewed for teaching purposes and afterwards the participants re-assessed the degree of radiological change in a new set of images (from fifteen different patients) applying the PRECISE score. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. Confirmatory biopsies and PRECISE scores given in consensus by two radiologists (involved in the original draft of the PRECISE score) were the reference standard. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the average area under the curve (AUC) for the assessment of radiological change from baseline (AUC: 0.60 [Confidence Intervals: 0.51-0.69] to post-teaching (AUC: 0.77 [0.70-0.84]). This was an improvement of 0.17 [0.016-0.28] (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated teaching course on the use of the PRECISE score improves the accuracy in the assessment of radiological change in serial MRI of the prostate.

Relationship of prostate cancer topography and tumour conspicuity on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved the triage of men with suspected prostate cancer, through precision prebiopsy identification of clinically significant disease. While multiple important characteristics, including tumour grade and size have been shown to affect conspicuity on mpMRI, tumour location and association with mpMRI visibility is an underexplored facet of this field. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to collate the extant evidence comparing MRI performance between different locations within the prostate in men with existing or suspected prostate cancer. This review will help clarify mechanisms that underpin whether a tumour is visible, and the prognostic implications of our findings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane will be systematically searched for relevant studies. Eligible studies will be full-text English-language articles that examine the effect of zonal location on mpMRI conspicuity. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A third reviewer will be involved if consensus is not achieved. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will inform the methodology and reporting of the review. Study bias will be assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A thematic approach will be used to synthesise key location-based factors associated with mpMRI conspicuity. A meta-analysis will be conducted to form a pooled value of the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI at different tumour locations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021228087.

Inter-reader agreement of the PI-QUAL score for prostate MRI quality in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial.

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.

Tumour growth rates of prostate cancer during active surveillance: is there a difference between MRI-visible low and intermediate-risk disease?

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.

Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score.

There is increasing interest in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer pathway. The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) now advise mpMRI prior to biopsy, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate.The widespread and swift adoption of this technique has led to variability in image quality. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer.This critical review outlines the studies aimed at improving prostate MR quality that have been published over the last 5 years. These span from the use of specific MR sequences, magnets and coils to patient preparation. The rates of adherence of prostate mpMRI to technical standards in different cohorts across the world are also discussed.Finally, we discuss the first standardised scoring system (i.e., Prostate Imaging Quality, PI-QUAL) that has been created to evaluate image quality, although further iterations of this score are expected in the future.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography compared to multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has improved almost every aspect of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. However, the novel imaging technique, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) may have demonstrable accuracy in detecting and staging prostate cancer. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mpMRI to PSMA PET for the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed for screening, data extraction, statistical analysis and reporting. Included papers will be full-text articles providing original data, written in English articles and comparing the use of PSMA PET with mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. All studies published between July 1977 and March 2021 will be eligible for inclusion. Study bias and quality will be assessed using Quadas-2 score. To ensure the quality of the reporting of studies, this protocol is written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239296.