Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: To assess associations between whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics and pathologic findings of Likert score 3 prostate lesions at MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy. METHODS: This retrospective Institutional Review Board-approved study received a waiver of consent. We identified patients receiving a highest lesion score of 3 on 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI reviewed by a single experienced radiologist using a 5-point Likert scale and who underwent fusion biopsy. A total of 188 score 3 lesions in 158 patients were included. Three-dimensional volumes-of-interest encompassing each lesion were traced on ADC maps. Logistic regression was used to predict biopsy results based on whole-lesion ADC metrics and patient biopsy history. Biopsy yield was compared between metrics. RESULTS: By lesion, targeted biopsy identified tumor in 22.3% and Gleason score (GS) > 6 tumor in 8.5%, although results varied by biopsy history: biopsy-naive (n = 80), 20.0%/8.8%; prior negative biopsy (n = 53), 9.4%/1.9%; prior positive biopsy (n = 55): 40.0%/14.5%. Biopsy history, whole-lesion mean ADC, whole-lesion ADC10-25 , and whole-lesion ADC25-50 were each significantly associated with tumor or GS > 6 tumor at fusion biopsy (P 6 tumor, which was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than specificity of PSA (17.5%) at identical sensitivity. CONCLUSION: For score 3 lesions in patients without prior negative biopsy, whole-lesion ADC metrics help detect GS > 6 cancer while avoiding negative biopsies. However, deferral of fusion biopsy may be considered for score 3 lesions in patients with prior negative biopsy (without applying whole-lesion ADC metrics) given exceedingly low ( approximately 2%) frequency of GS > 6 tumor in this group. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the discussion that took place at a public workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology reviewing the current state of the art for partial gland ablation (PGA) for the management of patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss potential indications, current available evidence, and designs for future trials to provide the evidence needed by patients and providers to decide how and when to use PGA. METHODS: A workshop evaluating PGA for prostate cancer was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2015. Invited experts representing all stakeholders and attendees discussed the regulatory development of medical products, technology available, potential indications, and designs of trials to evaluate this modality of therapy. RESULTS: The panel presented the current information on the technologies available to perform PGA, the potential indications, and results of prior consensus conferences. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for patient selection, guide therapy, and follow-up was discussed. Designs of trials to assess PGA outcomes were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The general consensus was that currently available technologies are capable of selective ablation with reasonable accuracy, but that criteria for patient selection remain debatable, and long-term cancer control remains to be established in properly designed and well performed prospective clinical trials. Concerns include the potential for excessive, unnecessary use in patients with low risk cancer and, conversely, that current diagnostic techniques may underestimate the extent and aggressiveness of some cancers, leading to inadequate treatment.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in using imaging in the detection and localization of prostate cancer (PCa). Both multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and HistoScanning (HS) have been independently evaluated in the detection and localization of PCa. We undertook a prospective, blinded comparison of mpMRI and HS for cancer localization among men undergoing radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Following approval by the institutional review board, men scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy, who had previously undergone mpMRI at our institution, were offered inclusion in the study. Those consenting underwent preoperative HS following induction of anesthesia; mpMRI, HS, and surgical step-section pathology were independently read by a single radiologist, urologist, and pathologist, respectively, in a blinded fashion. Disease maps created by each independent reader were compared and evaluated for concordance by a 5 persons committee consisting of 2 urologists, 2 pathologists, and 1 radiologist. Logistic regression for correlated data was used to assess and compare mpMRI and HS in terms of diagnostic accuracy for cancer detection. Generalized estimating equations based on binary logistic regression were used to model concordance between reader opinion and the reference standard assessment of the same lesion site or region as a function of imaging modality. RESULTS: Data from 31/35 men enrolled in the trial were deemed to be evaluable. On evaluation of cancer localization, HS identified cancer in 36/78 (46.2%) regions of interest, as compared with 41/78 (52.6%) on mpMRI (P = 0.3968). The overall accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and specificity for detection of disease within a region of interest were significantly better with mpMRI as compared with HS. HS detected 36/84 (42.9%) cancer foci as compared with 42/84 (50%) detected by mpMRI (P = 0.3678). Among tumors with Gleason score>6, mpMRI detected 19/22 (86.4%) whereas HS detected only 11/22 (50%, P = 0.0078). Similarly, among tumors>10mm in maximal diameter, mpMRI detected 28/34 (82.4%) whereas HS detected only 19/34 (55.9%, P = 0.0352). CONCLUSION: In our institution, the diagnostic accuracy of HS was inferior to that of mpMRI in PCa for PCa detection and localization. Although our study warrants validation from larger cohorts, it would suggest that the HS protocol requires further refinement before clinical implementation.