Faculty Bibliography

Prostate MRI is commonly used in the detection of prostate cancer to reduce the detection of clinically insignificant disease; maximize the detection of clinically significant cancer; and better assess disease size, grade, and location. The clinical utility of MRI seems to apply to men with no prior biopsy, who have had a previous negative biopsy, and men who are candidate for active surveillance. In conjunction with traditional clinical parameters and secondary biomarkers, MRI may allow more accurate risk stratification and assessment of need for prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and tumor assessment at prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging (rFOV-DWI) and standard DWI (st-DWI). METHODS:A total of 49 patients undergoing prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy were included. Examinations included st-DWI (field of view [FOV], 200 × 200 mm) and rFOV-DWI (FOV, 140 × 64 mm) using a 2-dimensional (2D) spatially-selective radiofrequency pulse and parallel transmission. Two readers performed qualitative assessments; a third reader performed quantitative evaluation. RESULTS:Overall image quality, anatomic distortion, visualization of capsule, and visualization of peripheral/transition zone edge were better for rFOV-DWI for reader 1 (P ≤ 0.002), although not for reader 2 (P ≥ 0.567). For both readers, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for tumor with a Gleason Score (GS) of 3 + 4 or higher were not different (P ≥ 0.289). Lesion clarity was higher for st-DWI for reader 2 (P = 0.008), although similar for reader 1 (P = 0.409). Diagnostic confidence was not different for either reader (P ≥ 0.052). Tumor-to-benign apparent diffusion coefficient ratio was not different (P = 0.675). CONCLUSIONS:Potentially improved image quality of rFOV-DWI did not yield improved tumor assessment. Continued optimization is warranted.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Eighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning for the purpose of diagnosing PCa. Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear.

INTRODUCTION: The classical pathway for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy of the prostate initiated on the basis of a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA). An alternative pathway is to perform multi-parametricMRI (MPMRI) to localise cancer and to use this information to influence the decision for, and conduct of, a subsequent biopsy, known as an MPMRI-targeted biopsy. An MPMRI pathway has been shown to detect a similar or greater amount of clinically significant cancer as TRUS biopsy but has several advantages, including the potential to biopsy fewer men with fewer cores. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, international, multicentre, parallel group randomised study in which men are allocated in a 1:1 ratio to an MPMRI or TRUS biopsy pathway. This study will assess whether an MPMRI-targeted biopsy approach is non-inferior to a standard TRUS biopsy approach in the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer.Men in the MRI arm will undergo targeted biopsy of suspicious areas only and no biopsy will be carried out if the MRI is non-suspicious. Men in the TRUS biopsy will undergo a standard 10-12-core TRUS biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are a serum PSA