MRI assessment of rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy: a multireader study.

OBJECTIVES: A watch and wait strategy with the goal of organ preservation is an emerging treatment paradigm for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant treatment. However, the selection of appropriate patients remains a challenge. Most previous efforts to measure the accuracy of MRI in assessing rectal cancer response used a small number of radiologists and did not report variability among them. METHODS: Twelve radiologists from 8 institutions assessed baseline and restaging MRI scans of 39 patients. The participating radiologists were asked to assess MRI features and to categorize the overall response as complete or incomplete. The reference standard was pathological complete response or a sustained clinical response for > 2 years. RESULTS: We measured the accuracy and described the interobserver variability of interpretation of rectal cancer response between radiologists at different medical centers. Overall accuracy was 64%, with a sensitivity of 65% for detecting complete response and specificity of 63% for detecting residual tumor. Interpretation of the overall response was more accurate than the interpretation of any individual feature. Variability of interpretation was dependent on the patient and imaging feature investigated. In general, variability and accuracy were inversely correlated. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-based evaluation of response at restaging is insufficiently accurate and has substantial variability of interpretation. Although some patients response to neoadjuvant treatment on MRI may be easily recognizable, as seen by high accuracy and low variability, that is not the case for most patients. KEY POINTS: • The overall accuracy of MRI-based response assessment is low and radiologists differed in their interpretation of key imaging features. • Some patients scans were interpreted with high accuracy and low variability, suggesting that these patients pattern of response is easier to interpret. • The most accurate assessments were those of the overall response, which took into consideration both T2W and DWI sequences and the assessment of both the primary tumor and the lymph nodes

Can computer-aided diagnosis assist in the identification of prostate cancer on prostate MRI? a multi-center, multi-reader investigation.

For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions. Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001). PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists' detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development

Optimum imaging strategies for advanced prostate cancer: ASCO guideline

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared $ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario

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.</p

Computer extracted gland features from H&E predicts prostate cancer recurrence comparably to a genomic companion diagnostic test: a large multi-site study

Existing tools for post-radical prostatectomy (RP) prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (BCR) prognosis rely on human pathologist-derived parameters such as tumor grade, with the resulting inter-reviewer variability. Genomic companion diagnostic tests such as Decipher tend to be tissue destructive, expensive, and not routinely available in most centers. We present a tissue non-destructive method for automated BCR prognosis, termed "Histotyping", that employs computational image analysis of morphologic patterns of prostate tissue from a single, routinely acquired hematoxylin and eosin slide. Patients from two institutions (n = 214) were used to train Histotyping for identifying high-risk patients based on six features of glandular morphology extracted from RP specimens. Histotyping was validated for post-RP BCR prognosis on a separate set of n = 675 patients from five institutions and compared against Decipher on n = 167 patients. Histotyping was prognostic of BCR in the validation set (p < 0.001, univariable hazard ratio [HR] = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03-3.93, concordance index [c-index] = 0.68, median years-to-BCR: 1.7). Histotyping was also prognostic in clinically stratified subsets, such as patients with Gleason grade group 3 (HR = 4.09) and negative surgical margins (HR = 3.26). Histotyping was prognostic independent of grade group, margin status, pathological stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (multivariable p < 0.001, HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.40-3.10, n = 648). The combination of Histotyping, grade group, and preoperative PSA outperformed Decipher (c-index = 0.75 vs. 0.70, n = 167). These results suggest that a prognostic classifier for prostate cancer based on digital images could serve as an alternative or complement to molecular-based companion diagnostic tests

Not All Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Imaging Agents Are Created Equal: Diagnostic Accuracy of Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT for Initial and Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers that target prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a transmembrane protein overexpressed in prostate cancer (PCa) cells, are highly sensitive and specific for the detection of metastatic PCa. The radioactive PET imaging agent Ga-68 PSMA-11 has demonstrated higher PCa detection rates compared with conventional imaging techniques, leading to its increased use in the diagnosis of PCa. In this review of literature published between February 2015 and December 2022, of 76 studies in >5000 men with PCa, we examined the accuracy and clinical use of Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET for the initial staging of PCa, assessment of biochemical recurrence (BCR), and how this technique may affect the clinical management of PCa. The majority of studies evaluating Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET for primary staging and for BCR demonstrated a sensitivity >80% and a specificity >90%. Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET led to a change in clinical management in 19% to 52% and 16% to 75% of patients with primary PCa and BCR, respectively. Variations in diagnostic accuracy parameters were observed among studies but were anticipated given differences in patient characteristics (eg, PSA, lesion sizes) and study designs. No serious adverse events were noted with Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET. Overall, Ga-68 PSMA-11 offers high sensitivity, is well tolerated, and can result in clinical management changes for patients with primary PCa and BCR

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging? The Stars Do Not Look Big, But They Can Look Brighter

In this issue of European Urology Open Science, Cacciamani and colleagues [1] report preliminary results from their systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis addressing the lack of data on detection of prostate cancer via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). They included in their analysis five studies comparing the performance of radiologists and AI alone versus a combination of radiologists aided by a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) AI system. Interestingly, their analysis shows that the pooled sensitivity (89.1% vs 79.5%) and specificity (78.1% vs 73.1%) were higher for the radiologists + CAD AI combination than for radiologists alone. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio for radiologists + CAD AI was also higher than for radiologists alone (29% vs 11%)