Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To compare image quality and diagnostic performance for detecting local recurrence (LR) of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) between standard dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a high spatiotemporal resolution, continuously acquired Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel acquisition employing compressed sensing reconstruction ("GRASP"). METHODS: A search was conducted for prostate MRI examinations performed in patients with PSA >/=0.2 ng/mL after RP in whom follow-up evaluation allowed classification as positive (>/=50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation or positive biopsy) or negative (<50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation; spontaneous PSA normalization) for LR, yielding 13 patients with standard DCE (11 LR+) and 12 with GRASP (10 LR+). Standard DCE had voxel size 3.0 x 1.9 x 1.9 mm and temporal resolution 5.5 s. GRASP had voxel size 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.1 cm and was retrospectively reconstructed at 2.3 s resolution. Two radiologists evaluated DCE sequences for image quality measures (1-5 scale) and the presence of LR. RESULTS: GRASP achieved higher scores than standard DCE from both readers (p < 0.001-0.136) for anatomic clarity (R1: 4.4 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.67 R2: 4.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.6), sharpness (3.6 +/- 0.9 vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7; 4.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.5), confidence in interpretation (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.9; 3.8 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.1 +/- 1.2), and conspicuity of detected lesions (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.1; 4.5 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.0). For detecting LR, GRASP also achieved higher sensitivity (70% vs. 36%; 80% vs. 45%), specificity (R1 and R2: 100% vs. 50%), and accuracy (75% vs. 38%; 83% vs. 46%) for both readers. CONCLUSION: Although requiring larger studies, high spatiotemporal resolution GRASP achieved substantially better image quality and diagnostic performance than standard DCE for detecting LR in patients with elevated PSA after prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a combination of PCA3 and MRI suspicion score (mSS) could further optimize detection of prostate cancer on MRF-TB among men with no previous history of biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 187 men presenting to our institution between 6/12 and 8/14 who underwent multiparametric MRI and PCA3 prior to MRF-TB. Biopsy results, stratified by biopsy indication and PCA3 score, were recorded. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to model the association of PCA3 and mSS with cancer detection on MRF-TB. RESULTS: PCA3 is associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76). Using a cutoff of >/=35, PCA3 was associated with cancer risk among men with mSS 2-3 (p=0.004), but not among those with mSS 4-5 (p=0.340). The interaction of PCA3 and mSS demonstrated significantly higher discrimination for cancer than mSS alone (AUC: 0.83 vs. 0.79, p=0.0434). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary PCA3 is associated with mSS and the detection of cancer on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies. PCA3 notably demonstrates a high negative predictive value among mSS 2-3. However, in the case of high suspicion mpMRI, PCA3 is not associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB adding little to cancer diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of PCA3 in predicting cancer among men with normal mpMRI.

PURPOSE: Following an initial negative biopsy, there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a collaborative Initiative of the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology's Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: s: The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of CS disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high-quality prostate MRI is available, it should be strongly considered in any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision whether to perform MRI in this setting must also take into account results of any other biomarkers, the cost of the examination, as well as availability of high quality prostate MRI interpretation. If MRI is done, it should be performed, interpreted, and reported in accordance with PI-RADS V2 guidelines. Experience by the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate MRI into patient management are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results. Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3-5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While TRUS-MRI fusion or in-bore MRI-targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for MRI lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies, cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least two targeted cores should be obtained from each MRI-defined target. Given a number of studies showing a proportion of missed CS cancers by MRI-targeted cores, a case-specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only should be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate MRI interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with a negative or low-suspicion MRI (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (i.e., PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value to identify patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data is needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of the MRI findings, then continued clinical and laboratory follow-up is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat MRI in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.