Optimization and Repeatability of Multipool Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer MRI of the Prostate at 3.0 T

BACKGROUND: Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) can potentially support cancer imaging with metabolically derived information. Multiparametric prostate MRI has improved diagnosis but may benefit from additional information to reduce the need for biopsies. PURPOSE: To optimize an acquisition and postprocessing protocol for 3.0 T multipool CEST analysis of prostate data and evaluate the repeatability of the technique. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Five healthy volunteers (age range: 24-47 years; median age: 28 years) underwent two sessions (interval range: 7-27 days; median interval: 20 days) and two biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients were evaluated once. Patient 1 (71 years) had a Gleason 3 + 4 transition zone (TZ) tumor and patient 2 (55 years) had a Gleason 4 + 3 peripheral zone (PZ) tumor. FIELD STRENGTH: 3.0 T. Sequences run: T2 -weighted turbo-spin-echo (TSE); diffusion-weighted imaging; CEST; WASABI (for B0 determination). ASSESSMENT: Saturation, readout, and fit-model parameters were optimized to maximize in vivo amide and nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE) signals. Repeatability (intrasession and intersession) was evaluated in healthy volunteers. Subsequently, preliminary evaluation of signal differences was made in patients. Regions of interest were drawn by two post-FRCR board-certified readers, both with over 5 years of experience in multiparametric prostate MRI. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, coefficient of variation (CV), and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Statistical significance of CEST contrast was calculated using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The optimized saturation scheme was found to be 60 sinc-Gaussian pulses with 40 msec pulse duration, at 50% duty-cycle with continuous-wave pulse equivalent B1 power (B1CWPE ) of 0.92 μT. The magnetization transfer (MT) contribution to the fit-model was centered at -1.27 ppm. Intersession coefficients of variation (CVs) of the amide, NOE, and magnetization transfer (MT) and asymmetric magnetization transfer ratio (MTRasym ) signals of 25%, 23%, 18%, and 200%, respectively, were observed. Fit-metric and MTRasym CVs agreed between readers to within 4 and 10 percentage points, respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: Signal differences of 0.03-0.10 (17-43%) detectable depending upon pool, with MT the most repeatable (signal difference of 17-22% detectable). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019

Added value of diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast enhancement in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the PICTURE trial

Objective To determine the additional diagnostic value of diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) imaging in men requiring a repeat biopsy within the PICTURE study. Patients and Methods PICTURE was a paired‐cohort confirmatory study in which 249 men who required further risk stratification following a previous non‐MRI guided TRUS biopsy underwent a 3‐Tesla mpMRI consisting of T2W, DWI and DCE followed by transperineal template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy. Each mpMRI was reported using a LIKERT score in a sequential blinded manner to generate scores for T2W, T2W+DWI and T2W+DWI+DCE. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) fanalysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of each combination. The threshold for a positive mpMRI was set as a LIKERT score >/=3. Clinically significant prostate cancer was analysed across a range of definitions including UCL/Ahmed Definition 1 (primary definition), UCL/Ahmed Definition 2, any Gleason >/=3+4 and any Gleason >/=4+3. Results Of 249, sequential MRI reporting was available for 246. There was a higher rate of equivocal lesions (44.6%) using T2W alone compared to the addition of DWI (23.9%) and DCE (19.8%). Using the primary definition of clinically significant disease, there was no significant difference in the overall accuracy between T2W at AUROC 0.74 (95% CI 0.68‐0.80), T2W+DWI at 0.76 (95% CI 0.71‐0.82) and T2W+DWI+DCE at 0.77 (95% CI 0.71‐0.82) (p=0.55). The AUROCs remained comparable using other definitions of clinically significant disease including UCL/Ahmed 2 (p=0.79), Gleason >/=3+4 (p=0.53) and Gleason >/=4+3 (p=0.53). Conclusions Using a 3T MRI, a high level of diagnostic accuracy can be achieved using T2W as a single parameter in men with a prior biopsy. However, such a strategy can lead to a higher rate of equivocal lesions

Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. METHODS: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. RESULTS: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing

VERDICT MRI for Prostate Cancer: Intracellular Volume Fraction versus Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

BACKGROUND: Biologic specificity of diffusion MRI in relation to prostate cancer aggressiveness may improve by examining separate components of the diffusion MRI signal. The Vascular, Extracellular, and Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumors (VERDICT) model estimates three distinct signal components and associates them to (a) intracellular water, (b) water in the extracellular extravascular space, and (c) water in the microvasculature. PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability, image quality, and diagnostic utility of intracellular volume fraction (FIC) maps obtained with VERDICT prostate MRI and to compare those maps with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps for Gleason grade differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy men (median age, 62.2 years; range, 49.5–82.0 years) suspected of having prostate cancer or undergoing active surveillance were recruited to a prospective study between April 2016 and October 2017. All men underwent multiparametric prostate and VERDICT MRI. Forty-two of the 70 men (median age, 67.7 years; range, 50.0–82.0 years) underwent two VERDICT MRI acquisitions to assess repeatability of FIC measurements obtained with VERDICT MRI. Repeatability was measured with use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The image quality of FIC and ADC maps was independently evaluated by two board-certified radiologists. Forty-two men (median age, 64.8 years; range, 49.5–79.6 years) underwent targeted biopsy, which enabled comparison of FIC and ADC metrics in the differentiation between Gleason grades. RESULTS: VERDICT MRI FIC demonstrated ICCs of 0.87–0.95. There was no significant difference between image quality of ADC and FIC maps (score, 3.1 vs 3.3, respectively; P = .90). FIC was higher in lesions with a Gleason grade of at least 3+4 compared with benign and/or Gleason grade 3+3 lesions (mean, 0.49 ± 0.17 vs 0.31 ± 0.12, respectively; P = .002). The difference in ADC between these groups did not reach statistical significance (mean, 1.42 vs 1.16 × 10^{-3} mm^{2}/sec; P = .26). CONCLUSION: Fractional intracellular volume demonstrates high repeatability and image quality and enables better differentiation of a Gleason 4 component cancer from benign and/or Gleason 3+3 histology than apparent diffusion coefficient

National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate in the diagnostic pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen UK experts in prostate mpMRI and/or prostate cancer management across the UK (involving nine NHS centres to provide for geographical spread) participated in a consensus meeting following the Research and Development Corporation and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA-RAND) Appropriateness Method, and were moderated by an independent chair. The experts considered 354 items pertaining to who can request an mpMRI, prostate mpMRI protocol, reporting guidelines, training, quality assurance (QA) and patient management based on mpMRI levels of suspicion for cancer. Each item was rated for agreement on a 9-point scale. A panel median score of ≥7 constituted 'agreement' for an item; for an item to reach 'consensus', a panel majority scoring was required. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 59% of items (208/354); these were used to provide recommendations for the implementation of prostate mpMRI in the UK. Key findings include prostate mpMRI requests should be made in consultation with the urological team; mpMRI scanners should undergo QA checks to guarantee consistently high diagnostic quality scans; scans should only be reported by trained and experienced radiologists to ensure that men with unsuspicious prostate mpMRI might consider avoiding an immediate biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk

Evaluation of PSA and PSA Density in a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Diagnostic Pathway for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The INNOVATE Trial.

Objectives: To assess the clinical outcomes of mpMRI before biopsy and evaluate the space remaining for novel biomarkers. Methods: The INNOVATE study was set up to evaluate the validity of novel fluidic biomarkers in men with suspected prostate cancer who undergo pre-biopsy mpMRI. We report the characteristics of this clinical cohort, the distribution of clinical serum biomarkers, PSA and PSA density (PSAD), and compare the mpMRI Likert scoring system to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v2.1 (PI-RADS) in men undergoing biopsy. Results: 340 men underwent mpMRI to evaluate suspected prostate cancer. 193/340 (57%) men had subsequent MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csigPCa), i.e., overall Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length OR maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥4 mm of any grade including any 3 + 3, was found in 96/195 (49%) of biopsied patients. Median PSA (and PSAD) was 4.7 (0.20), 8.0 (0.17), and 9.7 (0.31) ng/mL (ng/mL/mL) in mpMRI scored Likert 3,4,5 respectively for men with csigPCa on biopsy. The space for novel biomarkers was shown to be within the group of men with mpMRI scored Likert3 (178/340) and 4 (70/350), in whom an additional of 40% (70/178) men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 37% (26/70) Likert4 could have been spared biopsy. PSAD is already considered clinically in this cohort to risk stratify patients for biopsy, despite this 67% (55/82) of men with mpMRI-scored Likert3, and 55% (36/65) Likert4, who underwent prostate biopsy had a PSAD below a clinical threshold of 0.15 (or 0.12 for men aged <50 years). Different thresholds of PSA and PSAD were assessed in mpMRI-scored Likert4 to predict csigPCa on biopsy, to achieve false negative levels of ≤5% the proportion of patients whom who test as above the threshold were unsuitably high at 86 and 92% of patients for PSAD and PSA respectively. When PSA was re tested in a sub cohort of men repeated PSAD showed its poor reproducibility with 43% (41/95) of patients being reclassified. After PI-RADS rescoring of the biopsied lesions, 66% (54/82) of the Likert3 lesions received a different PI-RADS score. Conclusions: The addition of simple biochemical and radiological markers (Likert and PSAD) facilitate the streamlining of the mpMRI-diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer but there remains scope for improvement, in the introduction of novel biomarkers for risk assessment in Likert3 and 4 patients, future application of novel biomarkers tested in a Likert cohort would also require re-optimization around Likert3/PI-RADS2, as well as reproducibility testing