Purpose We compared prostate tumor boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy histological assessment using detailed software assisted co-registration to define an optimal treatment margin for achieving complete tumor destruction during image guided focal ablation. Materials and Methods Included in study were 33 patients who underwent 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. A radiologist traced lesion borders on magnetic resonance imaging and assigned a suspicion score of 2 to 5. Three-dimensional reconstructions were created from high resolution digitalized slides of radical prostatectomy specimens and co-registered to imaging using advanced software. Tumors were compared between histology and imaging by the Hausdorff distance and stratified by the magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score, Gleason score and lesion diameter. Cylindrical volume estimates of treatment effects were used to define the optimal treatment margin. Results Three-dimensional software based registration with magnetic resonance imaging was done in 46 histologically confirmed cancers. Imaging underestimated tumor size with a maximal discrepancy between imaging and histological boundaries for a given tumor of an average ± SD of 1.99 ± 3.1 mm, representing 18.5% of the diameter on imaging. Boundary underestimation was larger for lesions with an imaging suspicion score 4 or greater (mean 3.49 ± 2.1 mm, p <0.001) and a Gleason score of 7 or greater (mean 2.48 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.035). A simulated cylindrical treatment volume based on the imaging boundary missed an average 14.8% of tumor volume compared to that based on the histological boundary. A simulated treatment volume based on a 9 mm treatment margin achieved complete histological tumor destruction in 100% of patients. Conclusions Magnetic resonance imaging underestimates histologically determined tumor boundaries, especially for lesions with a high imaging suspicion score and a high Gleason score. A 9 mm treatment margin around a lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging would consistently ensure treatment of the entire histological tumor volume during focal ablative therapy.

ObjectiveTo report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). ConclusionsFocal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.

Objective To evaluate the agreement between prostate tumour volume determined using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and that determined by histological assessment, using detailed software-assisted co-registration. Materials and Methods A total of 37 patients who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) were included. A radiologist traced the borders of suspicious lesions on T2WI and ADC and assigned a suspicion score of between 2 and 5, while a uropathologist traced the borders of tumours on histopathological photographs. Software was used to co-register MRI and three-dimensional digital reconstructions of radical prostatectomy specimens and to compute imaging and histopathological volumes. Agreement in volumes between MRI and histology was assessed using Bland–Altman plots and stratified by tumour characteristics. Results Among 50 tumours, the mean differences (95% limits of agreement) in MRI relative to histology were −32% (−128 to +65%) on T2WI and −47% (−143 to +49%) on ADC. For all tumour subsets, volume underestimation was more marked on ADC maps (mean difference ranging from −57 to −16%) than on T2WI (mean difference ranging from −45 to +2%). The 95% limits of agreement were wide for all comparisons, with the lower 95% limit ranging between −77 and −143% across assessments. Volume underestimation was more marked for tumours with a Gleason score ≥7 or a MRI suspicion score 4 or 5. Conclusion Volume estimates of prostate cancer using MRI tended to substantially underestimate histopathological volumes, with a wide variability in extent of underestimation across cases. These findings have implications for efforts to use MRI to guide risk assessment.

Background Although the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is of increasing interest, existing data are derived from small cohorts. Objective We describe clinical, histological, and radiological outcomes from an established AS programme, where protocol-based biopsies were omitted in favour of MRI-led monitoring. Design, setting, and participants Data on 672 men enrolled in AS between August 2004 and November 2017 (inclusion criteria: Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 localised prostate cancer, presenting prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml, and baseline mpMRI) were collected from the University College London Hospital (UCLH) database. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Primary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS; event defined as prostate cancer treatment, transition to watchful waiting, or death) and treatment-free survival (TFS). Secondary outcomes included rates of all-cause or prostate cancer–related mortality, metastasis, and upgrading to Gleason ≥4 + 3. Data on radiological and histological progression were also collected. Results and limitations More than 3800 person-years (py) of follow-up were accrued (median: 58 mo; interquartile range 37–82 mo). Approximately 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.0–87.6) and 71.8% (95% CI: 68.2–75.6) of patients remained on AS at 3 and 5 yr, respectively. EFS and TFS were lower in those with MRI-visible (Likert 4–5) disease or secondary Gleason pattern 4 at baseline (log-rank test; p <  0.001). In total, 216 men were treated. There were 24 deaths, none of which was prostate cancer related (6.3/1000 py; 95% CI: 4.1–9.5). Metastases developed in eight men (2.1 events/1000 py; 95% CI: 1.0–4.3), whereas 27 men upgraded to Gleason ≥4 + 3 on follow-up biopsy (7.7 events/1000 py; 95% CI: 5.2–11.3). Conclusions The rates of discontinuation, mortality, and metastasis in MRI-led surveillance are comparable with those of standard AS. MRI-visible disease and/or secondary Gleason grade 4 at baseline are associated with a greater likelihood of moving to active treatment at 5 yr. Further research will concentrate on optimising imaging intervals according to baseline risk. Patient summary In this report, we looked at the outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based surveillance for prostate cancer in a UK cohort. We found that this strategy could allow routine biopsies to be avoided. Secondary Gleason pattern 4 and MRI visibility are associated with increased rates of treatment. We conclude that MRI-based surveillance should be considered for the monitoring of small prostate tumours.

No abstract

Objectives The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. Methods A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. Results Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Conclusions Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. Key Points • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

AIM-To assess a novel method of three-dimensional (3D) co-registration of prostate cancer digital histology and in-vivo multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) image sets for clinical usefulness.MATERIAL AND METHODS-A software platform was developed to achieve 3D coregistration. This software was prospectively applied to three patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data comprised in-vivo mpMRI [T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced weighted images (DCE); apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)], ex-vivo T2-weighted imaging, 3D-rebuilt pathological specimen, and digital histology. Internal landmarks from zonal anatomy served as reference points for assessing co-registration accuracy and precision.RESULTS-Applying a method of deformable transformation based on 22 internal landmarks, a 1.6 mm accuracy was reached to align T2-weighted images and the 3D-rebuilt pathological specimen, an improvement over rigid transformation of 32% (p = 0.003). The 22 zonal anatomy landmarks were more accurately mapped using deformable transformation than rigid transformation (p = 0.0008). An automatic method based on mutual information, enabled automation of the process and to include perfusion and diffusion MRI images. Evaluation of coregistration accuracy using the volume overlap index (Dice index) met clinically relevant CONCLUSION-This preliminary analysis suggests that deformable transformation based on zonal anatomy landmarks is accurate in the co-registration of mpMRI and histology. Including diffusion and perfusion sequences in the same 3D space as histology is essential further clinical information. The ability to localize cancer in 3D space may improve targeting for image-guided biopsy, focal therapy, and disease quantification in surveillance protocols.

Objectives Multi-parametric MRI is emerging as a promising method for prostate cancer diagnosis. prognosis and treatment planning. However, the localization of in-vivo detected lesions and pathologic sites of cancer remains a significant challenge. To overcome this limitation we have developed and tested a system for co-registration of in-vivo MRI, ex-vivo MRI and histology. Materials and Methods Three men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (ages 54–72, PSA levels 5.1–7.7 ng/ml) were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients underwent 3T multi-parametric MRI that included T2W, DCE-MRI, and DWI prior to robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Ex-vivo multi-parametric MRI was performed on fresh prostate specimen. Excised prostates were then sliced at regular intervals and photographed both before and after fixation. Slices were perpendicular to the main axis of the posterior capsule, i.e., along the direction of the rectal wall. Guided by the location of the urethra, 2D digital images were assembled into 3D models. Cancer foci, extra-capsular extensions and zonal margins were delineated by the pathologist and included in 3D histology data. A locally-developed software was applied to register in-vivo, ex-vivo and histology using an over-determined set of anatomical landmarks placed in anterior fibro-muscular stroma, central. transition and peripheral zones. The mean root square distance across corresponding control points was used to assess co-registration error. Results Two specimens were pT3a and one pT2b (negative margin) at pathology. The software successfully fused in-vivo MRI. ex-vivo MRI fresh specimen and histology using appropriate (rigid and affine) transformation models with mean square error of 1.59 mm. Coregistration accuracy was confirmed by multi-modality viewing using operator-guided variable transparency. Conclusion The method enables successful co-registration of pre-operative MRI, ex-vivo MRI and pathology and it provides initial evidence of feasibility of MRI-guided surgical planning.