Multi Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the early detection and risk stratification of prostate cancer: The PROMIS trial

Although prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, it remains a difficult and controversial disease in terms of its diagnostic, risk stratification and treatment pathway. This is mainly due to the shortcomings of the standard diagnostic test, trans rectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUSBx), that is triggered following an elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) test and the lack of agreement on disease thresholds that correlate to patient risk, if left untreated (and thus undetected). These factors often complicate the selection of the appropriate management that best fits the individual patient. In this doctoral thesis I propose, examine and validate a different approach that aims to shift the current diagnostic paradigm to that of incorporating an imaging test, multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI), prior to TRUS biopsy. First, I will discuss the nature of prostate cancer and highlight the shortcomings of the current diagnostic pathway and their implications. Second, I will analyze the shortcomings in early MP-MRI research that might have hindered its acceptance and adoption into the pathway and review the advances in research that occurred since I started my research. Third, I will discuss the rationale and methodological design considerations behind the PROstate Mri Imaging Study (PROMIS). PROMIS was a multicentre diagnostic paired validating confirmatory cohort study conducted to provide level 1b evidence on diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI. It was designed to avoid the pitfalls identified in the current literature. I will discuss and analyze the design, conduct and results of the trial and its implications. Finally, I will discuss the wider implications of my work on the clinical practice of prostate cancer management and the future research opportunities made possible by the PROMIS data and its findings

The concordance between the volume hotspot and the grade hotspot: a 3-D reconstructive model using the pathology outputs from the PROMIS trial.

The rationale for directing targeted biopsy towards the centre of lesions has been questioned in light of prostate cancer grade heterogeneity. In this study, we assess the assumption that the maximum cancer Gleason grade (Gleason grade hotspot) lies within the maximum dimension (volume hotspot) of a prostate cancer lesion. 3-D histopathological models were reconstructed using the outputs of the 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM) biopsies used as the reference test in the pilot phase of Prostate Mri Imaging Study (PROMIS), a paired validating cohort study investigating the performance of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) against transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies. The prostate was fully sampled with 5 mm intervals; each core was separately labelled, inked and orientated in space to register 3-D cancer lesions location. The data from the histopathology results were used to create a 3-D interpolated reconstruction of each lesion and identify the spatial coordinates of the largest dimension (volume hot spot) and highest Gleason grade (Gleason grade hotspot) and assess their concordance. Ninety-four men, with median age 62 years (interquartile range, IQR= 58-68) and median PSA 6.5 ng ml(-1) (4.6-8.8), had a median of 80 (I69-89) cores each with a median of 4.5 positive cores (0-12). In the primary analysis, the prevalence of homogeneous lesions was 148 (76%; 95% confidence interval (CI) ±6.0%). In all, 184 (94±3.2%) lesions showed concordant hotspots and 11/47 (23±12.1%) of heterogeneous lesions showed discordant hotspots. The median 3-D distance between discordant hotspots was 12.8 mm (9.9-15.5). These figures remained stable on secondary analyses using alternative reconstructive assumptions. Limitations include a certain degree of error within reconstructed models. Guiding one biopsy needle to the maximum cancer diameter would lead to correct Gleason grade attribution in 94% of all lesions and 79% of heterogeneous ones if a true hit was obtained. Further correlation of histological lesions, their MRI appearance and the detectability of these hotspots on MRI will be undertaken once PROMIS results are released

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

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

Background Men with high serum prostate specific antigen usually undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy). TRUS-biopsy can cause side-effects including bleeding, pain, and infection. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy.Methods We did this multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study to test diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI and TRUS-biopsy against a reference test (template prostate mapping biopsy [TPM-biopsy]). Men with prostate-specific antigen concentrations up to 15 ng/mL, with no previous biopsy, underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6 mm or longer. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01292291.Findings Between May 17, 2012, and November 9, 2015, we enrolled 740 men, 576 of whom underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. On TPM-biopsy, 408 (71%) of 576 men had cancer with 230 (40%) of 576 patients clinically significant. For clinically significant cancer, MP-MRI was more sensitive (93%, 95% CI 88-96%) than TRUS-biopsy (48%, 42-55%; p<0·0001) and less specific (41%, 36-46% for MP-MRI vs 96%, 94-98% for TRUS-biopsy; p<0·0001). 44 (5·9%) of 740 patients reported serious adverse events, including 8 cases of sepsis.Interpretation Using MP-MRI to triage men might allow 27% of patients avoid a primary biopsy and diagnosis of 5% fewer clinically insignificant cancers. If subsequent TRUS-biopsies were directed by MP-MRI findings, up to 18% more cases of clinically significant cancer might be detected compared with the standard pathway of TRUS-biopsy for all. MP-MRI, used as a triage test before first prostate biopsy, could reduce unnecessary biopsies by a quarter. MP-MRI can also reduce over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and improve detection of clinically significant cancer.Funding PROMIS is funded by the UK Government Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment Programme, (Project number 09/22/67). This project is also supported and partly funded by UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre and The Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and is coordinated by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at UCL. It is sponsored by University College London (UCL)

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

Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Nearly five decades following its conception, the Gleason grading system remains a cornerstone in the prognostication and management of patients with prostate cancer. In the past few years, a debate has been growing whether Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer is a clinically significant disease. Clinical, molecular and genetic research is addressing the question whether well characterized Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease has the ability to affect the morbidity and quality of life of an individual in whom it is diagnosed. The consequences of treatment of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease are considerable; few men get through their treatments without sustaining some harm. Further modification of the classification of prostate cancer and dropping the label cancer for Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease might be warranted

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children &lt;18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p&lt;0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p&lt;0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p&lt;0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer