Update on the ICUD-SIU consultation on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in localised prostate cancer

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is a rapidly evolving field. Dramatic improvements in prostate MRI during the last decade will probably change the accuracy of diagnosis. This chapter reviews recent current evidence about MRI diagnostic performance and impact on PCa management. Materials and methods: The International Consultation on Urological Diseases nominated a committee to review the literature on prostate MRI. A search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify articles focussed on MP-MRI detection and staging protocols, reporting and scoring systems, the role of MP-MRI in diagnosing PCa prior to biopsy, in active surveillance, in focal therapy and in detecting local recurrence after treatment. Results: Differences in opinion were reported in the use of the strength of magnets [1.5 Tesla (T) vs. 3T] and coils. More agreement was found regarding the choice of pulse sequences; diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI), and/or MR spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) are recommended in addition to conventional T2-weighted anatomical sequences. In 2015, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS version 2) was described to standardize image acquisition and interpretation. MP-MRI improves detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the repeat biopsy setting or before the confirmatory biopsy in patients considering active surveillance. It is useful to guide focal treatment and to detect local recurrences after treatment. Its role in biopsy-naive patients or during the course of active surveillance remains debated. Conclusion: MP-MRI is increasingly used to improve detection of csPCa and for the selection of a suitable therapeutic approach

Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer : The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force

Background: Published data on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during follow-up of men on active surveillance are lacking. Current guidelines for prostate MRI reporting concentrate on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and staging. A standardised approach to prostate MRI reporting for active surveillance will facilitate the robust collection of evidence in this newly developing area. Objective: To develop preliminary recommendations for reporting of individual MRI studies in men on active surveillance and for researchers reporting the outcomes of cohorts of men having MRI on active surveillance. Design, setting, and participants: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Experts in urology, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a set of 394 statements relevant to prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance for PCa. Each statement was scored for agreement on a 9-point scale by each panellist prior to a panel meeting. Each statement was discussed and rescored at the meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Measures of agreement and consensus were calculated for each statement. The most important statements, derived from both group discussion and scores of agreement and consensus, were used to create the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) checklist and case report form. Results and limitations: Key recommendations include reporting the index lesion size using absolute values at baseline and at each subsequent MRI. Radiologists should assess the likelihood of true change over time (ie, change in size or change in lesion characteristics on one or more sequences) on a 1-5 scale. A checklist of items for reporting a cohort of men on active surveillance was developed. These items were developed based on expert consensus in many areas in which data are lacking, and they are expected to develop and change as evidence is accrued. Conclusions: The PRECISE recommendations are designed to facilitate the development of a robust evidence database for documenting changes in prostateMRI findings over time ofmen on active surveillance. If used, they will facilitate data collection to distinguish-measurement error and natural variability in MRI appearances from true radiologic progression. Patient summary: Few published reports are available on how to use and interpret magnetic resonance imaging for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. The PRECISE panel recommends that data should be collected in a standardised manner so that natural variation in the appearance and measurement of cancer over time can be distinguished from changes indicating significant tumour progression. (C) 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

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

MRI in active surveillance: a critical review

INTRODUCTION: Recent technological advancements and the introduction of modern anatomical and functional sequences have led to a growing role for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection, risk assessment and monitoring of early prostate cancer. This includes men who have been diagnosed with lower-risk prostate cancer and are looking at the option of active surveillance (AS). The purpose of this paper is to review the recent evidence supporting the use of mpMRI at different time points in AS, as well as to discuss some of its potential pitfalls. METHODS: A combination of electronic and manual searching methods were used to identify recent, important papers investigating the role of mpMRI in AS. RESULTS: The high negative predictive value of mpMRI can be exploited for the selection of AS candidates. In addition, mpMRI can be efficiently used to detect higher risk disease in patients already on surveillance. CONCLUSION: Although there is an ongoing debate regarding the precise nature of its optimal implementation, mpMRI is a promising risk stratification tool and should be considered for men on AS

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 advanced prostate cancer consensus conference (APCCC)

© in press The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. METHODS: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists"). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.Published onlin

PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review (AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems)

TThe Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 provides updates to the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate, along with revisions to the imaging interpretation criteria, while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include: (1) need for more detailed mpMRI protocols, with optimization for 1.5T and 3T systems; (2) lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications regarding the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone assessment; (3) need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background signal changes in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; (4) creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS “M” category); (5) inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; (6) adjustments to the structured report template, including a standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; (7) development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and (8) suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence)