No abstract

Objective To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 489 pre‐biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI‐RADS v2 by expert uro‐radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI‐RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a ‘per score’ basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. Results The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60–72) years and the median (IQR) prostate‐specific antigen level was 7 (5–10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI‐RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI‐RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI‐RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.

Although radiotherapy to the prostate for cancer is effective, recurrence occurs in 10-15% within 5 years. Traditional salvage treatments for men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer comprise of watchful waiting (WW) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). Neither strategy provides ideal therapeutic ratios. Salvage focal ablation is an emerging option. We performed a systematic review of the Medline and Embase databases for studies reporting outcomes of focal salvage brachytherapy (sBT), cryotherapy (sCT) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (sHIFU) for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (conception to April 2019). Results were screened for inclusion against predetermined eligibility criteria. Certain data were extracted, including rates of biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), metastasis, conversion to second-line therapies and adverse events. Of a total 134 articles returned from the search, 15 studies (14 case series and 1 comparative study) reported outcomes after focal sBT [5], sCT[7] and sHIFU [3]. Cohort size varied depending on intervention, with eligible studies of sBT being small case series. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 56 months. Although pre-salvage demographics were similar [median age range, 61-75 years; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) range, 2.8-5.5 ng/mL], there was heterogeneity in patient selection, individual treatment protocols and outcome reporting. At 3 years, BDFS ranged from 61% to 71.4% after sBT, 48.1-72.4% after sCT and 48% after sHIFU. Only studies of sCT reported 5-year BDFS, which ranged from 46.5% to 54.4%. Rates of metastasis were low after all salvage modalities, as were conversion to second-line therapies (although this was poorly reported). Grade 3 adverse events were rare. This systematic review indicates that salvage focal ablation of radiorecurrent prostate cancer provides acceptable oncological outcomes and is well tolerated. Unfortunately, there is heterogeneity in the study design of existing evidence. Level 1 research comparing salvage focal therapies to existing wholegland strategies is needed to further establish the role of these promising treatments.