The effect of dutasteride on MRI-defined prostate cancer lesions: MAPPED (Magnetic resonance imaging in Primary Prostate Cancer after Exposure to Dutasteride) - a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

PURPOSE: Dutasteride is licensed for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, and has been associated with a lower progression rate in low-risk prostate cancer. We have evaluated the effect of dutasteride on prostate cancer volume as assessed by T2-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men with biopsy-proven low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (up to Gleason 3+4 and PSA up to 15 ng/ml) who had an MR visible lesion of >/= 0.2ml on T2-weighted sequences were randomized to daily dutasteride 0.5mg or placebo for 6 months. Lesion volume was assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months, with an image-guided biopsy to the lesion at study exit. The primary endpoint was percentage reduction in lesion volume over 6 months. This trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials register (EudraCT 2009-102405-18). RESULTS: Forty-two men were recruited between June 2010 and January 2012. In the dutasteride group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.55ml and 0.38ml respectively, and the average percentage reduction was 36%. In the placebo group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.65ml and 0.76ml respectively, and the average percentage reduction was -12%. The difference in percentage reductions between groups was 48% (95% CI 27.4-68.3%. p< 0.0001). The most common adverse event was deterioration in erectile function (25% in men randomized to dutasteride, 16% in men randomized to placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Dutasteride was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer volume on T2 weighted MRI images compared to placebo

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 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue

The ability of free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing transperineal template biopsy

The ability of free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing transperineal template biopsy Show all authors Surayne V Segaran, Amr M Emara, Tharani Mahesan, ... First Published September 12, 2017 Research Article Download PDFPDF download for The ability of free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing transperineal template biopsy Article information Full Access Article Information Volume: 10 issue: 6, page(s): 529-534 Article first published online: September 12, 2017; Issue published: November 1, 2017 Received: May 04, 2017; Accepted: August 08, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415817730494 Surayne V Segaran1, Amr M Emara1, 2, Tharani Mahesan3, Joshua Silverman1, Hashim U Ahmed4, Simon RJ Bott3, Richard G Hindley1 1Urology Department, North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust, UK 2Urology Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt 3Urology Department, Frimley Park Hospital, UK 4Imperial College London, UK Corresponding Author: Surayne V Segaran, Urology Department, North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Aldermaston Road, Basingstoke, RG24 9NA, UK. Email: [email protected] Abstract Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of the ratio of free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density to predict the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer on template biopsies. The value of these tests may be underestimated as they were previously validated against sextant transrectal biopsy of the prostate, which has been proved to miss a large proportion of significant prostate cancers. The ability of these tests to specifically detect clinically significant cancers has not previously been studied. Patients and methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients undergoing transperineal template biopsy who also had free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the comparative utility of each test in the detection of all cancers as well as clinically significant cancers, by means of the area under the curve. Results: Data from 293 patients were analysed. Prostate cancer was detected in 72% of patients, of which 62% of this group had clinically significant disease. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated the superiority of prostate-specific antigen density and free to total prostate-specific antigen over standard prostate-specific antigen in the overall detection of cancer (area under the curve 0.662 and 0.674 vs 0.534, p=0.003 and 0.02 respectively). Both tests were even more effective in the detection of clinically significant cancers (area under the curve 0.755 and 0.715 vs 0.572, p<0.0001 and 0.009 respectively). Conclusion: The free to total prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density both appear to perform well at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in our population of men undergoing template biopsy. The potential role of these inexpensive tests should not be overlooked as they may be of value when deciding which patients require biopsy following an initial magnetic resonance imaging scan and also for those on surveillance protocols

MRI findings in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: does dutasteride make MRI visible lesions less conspicuous? Results from a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

Objectives To investigate changes in the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer taking dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo. Methods We analysed 37 men, randomised to 6 months of daily dutasteride (n = 18) or placebo (n = 19), undergoing 3T multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) scans at baseline and 6 months. Images were reviewed blind to treatment allocation and clinical information. Mean ADC of peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones, and MR-suspicious lesions were compared between groups over 6 months. Conspicuity was defined as the PZ divided by tumour ADC, and its change over 6 months was assessed. Results A decrease in mean conspicuity in the dutasteride group (but not the controls) was seen over 6 months (1.54 vs 1.38; p = 0.025). Absolute changes in ADC and conspicuity were significantly different between placebo and dutasteride groups at 6 months: (-0.03 vs 0.08, p = 0.033) and (0.11 vs –0.16, p = 0.012), as were percentage changes in the same parameters: (-2.27% vs 8.56% p = 0.048) and (9.25% vs -9.89% p = 0.013). Conclusions Dutasteride was associated with increased tumour ADC and reduced conspicuity. A lower threshold for triggering biopsy might be considered in men on dutasteride undergoing mpMRI for prostate cancer

The effect of dutasteride on magnetic resonance imaging defined prostate cancer: MAPPED-a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind clinical trial

Purpose Dutasteride, which is licensed for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, has been associated with a lower progression rate of low risk prostate cancer. We evaluated the effect of dutasteride on prostate cancer volume as assessed by T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial, men with biopsy proven, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer (up to Gleason 3 + 4 and PSA up to 15 ng/ml) who had visible lesion of 0.2 ml or greater on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences were randomized to daily dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo for 6 months. Lesion volume was assessed at baseline, and 3 and 6 months with image guided biopsy to the lesion at study exit. The primary end point was the percent reduction in lesion volume over 6 months. This trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials register (EudraCT 2009-102405-18). Results A total of 42 men were recruited between June 2010 and January 2012. In the dutasteride group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.55 and 0.38 ml, respectively and the average reduction was 36%. In the placebo group, the average volumes at baseline and 6 months were 0.65 and 0.76 ml, respectively, and the average reduction was −12%. The difference in percent reductions between the groups was 48% (95% CI 27.4–68.3, p <0.0001). The most common adverse event was deterioration in erectile function, which was 25% in men randomized to dutasteride and 16% in men randomized to placebo. Conclusions Dutasteride was associated with a significant reduction in prostate cancer volume on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to placebo

What Type of Prostate Cancer Is Systematically Overlooked by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? An Analysis from the PROMIS Cohort.

Background All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).Objective To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI.Design, setting, and participants PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected.Results and limitations Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8-17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45-58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35-45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores (p = 0.0007; p  3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3-5; 95% CI 0-6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4-5; 95% CI 0-8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7-8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2-13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0-5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7-5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions.Conclusions Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected.Patient summary Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI

What Type of Prostate Cancer Is Systematically Overlooked by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? An Analysis from the PROMIS Cohort

Background: All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Objective: To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI. Design, setting, and participants: PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected. Results and limitations: Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4–12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8–17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45–58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35–45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores (p = 0.0007; p  3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3–5; 95% CI 0–6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4–5; 95% CI 0–8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7–8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2–13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0–5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7–5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions. Conclusions: Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected. Patient summary: Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI