Lower dose scans reconstructed with SAFIRE have a higher CNR. The ability of SAFIRE to improve low-contrast object detection and conspicuity depends on the radiation dose level. At low radiation doses, low-contrast objects are invisible, regardless of reconstruction technique.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is the result of an extensive international collaborative effort. PI-RADS provides a comprehensive yet practical set of guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging that will promote the use of this modality for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. The revised PI-RADS version (PI-RADS version 2) introduces important changes to the original system used for assessing the level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer with multiparametric MR imaging. For peripheral zone abnormalities in PI-RADS version 2, the score obtained from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) performed with high b values (≥1400 sec/mm(2)) is the dominant parameter for determining the overall level of suspicion for clinically significant cancer. For transition zone abnormalities, the score obtained from T2-weighted MR imaging is dominant for overall lesion assessment. Dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging has ancillary roles in the characterization of peripheral zone lesions considered equivocal for clinically significant cancer on the basis of the DWI-ADC combination and in the detection of lesions missed with other multiparametric MR pulse sequences. Assessment with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging is also simplified, being considered positive or negative on the basis of qualitative evaluation for a focal area of rapid enhancement matching an abnormality on DWI-ADC or T2-weighted MR images. In PI-RADS version 2, MR spectroscopic imaging is not incorporated into lesion assessment. In this article, a pictorial overview is provided of the revised PI-RADS version 2 assessment categories for the likelihood of clinically significant cancer. PI-RADS version 2 is expected to evolve with time, with updated versions being released as experience in the use of PI-RADS version 2 increases and as new scientific evidence and technologies emerge. (©)RSNA, 2016.

Background Biparametric MRI (comprising T2-weighted MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient maps) is increasingly being used to characterise prostate cancer. Although previous studies have combined Prostate Imaging-Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS)-based MRI findings with routinely available clinical variables and with deep learning-based imaging predictors, respectively, for prostate cancer risk stratification, none have combined all three. We aimed to construct an integrated nomogram (referred to as ClaD) combining deep learning-based imaging predictions, PI-RADS scoring, and clinical variables to identify clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI.Methods In this retrospective multicentre study, we included patients with prostate cancer, with histopathology or biopsy reports and a screening or diagnostic MRI scan in the axial view, from four cohorts in the USA (from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Cleveland Clinic, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center) and from the PROSTATEx Challenge dataset in the Netherlands. We constructed an integrated nomogram combining deep learning, PI-RADS score, and clinical variables (prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and lesion volume) using multivariable logistic regression to identify clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI. We used data from the first three cohorts to train the nomogram and data from the remaining two cohorts for independent validation. We compared the performance of our ClaD integrated nomogram with that of integrated nomograms combining clinical variables with either the deep learning-based imaging predictor (referred to as DIN) or PI-RADS score (referred to as PIN) using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). We also compared the ability of the nomograms to predict biochemical recurrence on a subset of patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy. We report cross-validation AUCs as means for the training set and used AUCs with 95% CIs to assess the performance on the test set. The difference in AUCs between the models were tested for statistical significance using DeLong's test. We used log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier curves to analyse survival. FindingsWe investigated 592 patients (823 lesions) with prostate cancer who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI at five hospitals in the USA between Jan 8, 2009, and June 3, 2017. The training data set consisted of 368 patients from three sites (the PROSTATEx Challenge cohort [n=204], University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center [n=126], and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai [n=38]), and the independent validation data set consisted of 224 patients from two sites (Cleveland Clinic [n=151] and Long Island Jewish Medical Center [n=73]). The ClaD clinical nomogram yielded an AUC of 0•81 (95% CI 0•76−0•85) for identification of clinically significant prostate cancer in the validation data set, significantly improving performance over the DIN (0•74 [95% CI 0•69−0•80], p=0•0005) and PIN (0•76...

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) influences its surrounding habitat, which tends to manifest as different phenotypic appearances on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This region surrounding the PCa lesion, or the peri-tumoral region, may encode useful information that can complement intra-tumoral information to enable better risk stratification. Purpose: To evaluate the role of peri-tumoral radiomic features on bi-parametric MRI (T2-weighted and Diffusion-weighted) to distinguish PCa risk categories as defined by D’Amico Risk Classification System. Materials and Methods: We studied a retrospective, HIPAA-compliant, 4-institution cohort of 231 PCa patients (n = 301 lesions) who underwent 3T multi-parametric MRI prior to biopsy. PCa regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated on MRI by experienced radiologists following which peri-tumoral ROIs were defined. Radiomic features were extracted within the intra- and peri-tumoral ROIs. Radiomic features differentiating low-risk from: (1) high-risk (L-vs.-H), and (2) (intermediate- and high-risk (L-vs.-I + H)) lesions were identified. Using a multi-institutional training cohort of 151 lesions (D1, N = 116 patients), machine learning classifiers were trained using peri- and intra-tumoral features individually and in combination. The remaining 150 lesions (D2, N = 115 patients) were used for independent hold-out validation and were evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and compared with PI-RADS v2 scores. Results: Validation on D2 using peri-tumoral radiomics alone resulted in areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of 0.84 and 0.73 for the L-vs.-H and L-vs.-I + H classifications, respectively. The best combination of intra- and peri-tumoral features resulted in AUCs of 0.87 and 0.75 for the L-vs.-H and L-vs.-I + H classifications, respectively. This combination improved the risk stratification results by 3–6% compared to intra-tumoral features alone. Our radiomics-based model resulted in a 53% accuracy in differentiating L-vs.-H compared to PI-RADS v2 (48%), on the validation set. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that peri-tumoral radiomic features derived from prostate bi-parametric MRI add independent predictive value to intra-tumoral radiomic features for PCa risk assessment.

For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions.Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001).PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists’ detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development.

3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1626-1636.