Steven C. Eberhardt

The major goal for prostate cancer imaging in the next decade is more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancers. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and brachytherapy seed placement. Endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is helpful for evaluating local tumor extent, and MR spectroscopic imaging can improve this evaluation while providing information about tumor aggressiveness. MR imaging with superparamagnetic nanoparticles has high sensitivity and specificity in depicting lymph node metastases, but guidelines have not yet been developed for its use, which remains restricted to the research setting. Computed tomography (CT) is reserved for the evaluation of advanced disease. The use of combined positron emission tomography/CT is limited in the assessment of primary disease but is gaining acceptance in prostate cancer treatment follow-up. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of imaging in assessing the risk of distant spread of prostate cancer are available. Radionuclide bone scanning and CT supplement clinical and biochemical evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostatic acid phosphate) for suspected metastasis to bones and lymph nodes. Guidelines for the use of bone scanning (in patients with PSA level > 10 ng/mL) and CT (in patients with PSA level > 20 ng/mL) have been published and are in clinical use. Nevertheless, changes in practice patterns have been slow. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the optimal role of modern imaging in prostate cancer detection, staging, treatment planning, and follow-up.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2–5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%–44% and 27%–48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

PURPOSE: To determine whether hydrogen 1 magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging can be used to predict aggressiveness of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients gave informed consent according to an institutionally approved research protocol. A total of 123 patients (median age, 58 years; age range, 40-74 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging between January 2000 and December 2002 were included. MR imaging and spectroscopy were performed by using combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal probe. Water and lipids were suppressed, and phase-encoded data were acquired with 6.2-mm resolution. Voxels in the peripheral zone were considered suspicious for cancer if (Cho + Cr)/Cit was at least two standard deviations above the normal level, where Cho represents choline-containing compounds, Cr represents creatine and phosphocreatine, and Cit represents citrate. Correlation between metabolite ratio and four Gleason score groups identified at step-section pathologic evaluation (3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and > or =4 + 4) was assessed with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Data from 94 patients were included. Pathologic evaluation was used to identify 239 lesions. Overall sensitivity of MR spectroscopic imaging was 56% for tumor detection, increasing from 44% in lesions with Gleason score of 3 + 3 to 89% in lesions with Gleason score greater than or equal to 4 + 4. There was a trend toward increasing (Cho + Cr)/Cit with increasing Gleason score in lesions identified correctly with MR spectroscopic imaging. Tumor volume assessed with MR spectroscopic imaging increased with increasing Gleason score. CONCLUSION: MR spectroscopic imaging measurement of prostate tumor (Cho + Cr)/Cit and tumor volume correlate with pathologic Gleason score. There is overlap between MR spectroscopic imaging parameters at various Gleason score levels, which may reflect methodologic and physiologic variations. MR spectroscopic imaging has potential in noninvasive assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness.

PURPOSE: After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review. RESULTS: The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.

PURPOSE: We determined whether membranous urethral length on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is predictive of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Membranous urethral length was measured on preoperative endorectal MRI in 211 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer before radical retropubic prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon. Neurovascular bundle resection was done in 60 cases. After surgery the time to stable postoperative continence was recorded in 180 cases and the level of stable continence was graded on a 5-point scale of 1-complete continence to 5-complete incontinence. RESULTS: After controlling for age and surgical technique multivariate analysis showed that membranous urethral length was related to time to stable postoperative continence (p = 0.02), such that a longer membranous urethra was associated with a shorter time to stable continence. For example, 1 year after surgery 120 of the 134 patients (89%) with a preoperative membranous urethral length of greater than 12 mm. were completely continent compared with 35 of the 46 (77%) with a preoperative length of 12 mm. or less. CONCLUSIONS: On endorectal MRI before radical prostatectomy a longer membranous urethra is associated with significantly more rapid return of urinary continence after surgery.