ABSTRACT Purpose To determine if PSAD, PSADtz, and ADC values improve the accuracy of PI-RADS v2 and identify men whose concurrent systematic biopsy detects clinically significant cancer on areas without mpMRI visible lesions. Materials and methods Single reference-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study of consecutive men with suspected or known low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent 3T mpMRI and TRUS-MRI fusion biopsy from 07/15/2014 to 02/17/2018. Cluster-corrected logistic regression analyses were utilized to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3+4) at targeted mpMRI lesions and on systematic biopsy. Results 538 men (median age=66 years, median PSA=7.0ng/mL) with 780mpMRI lesions were included. Clinically significant disease was diagnosed in 371 men. PI-RADS v2 scores of 3, 4, and 5 were clinically significant cancer in 8.0% (16/201), 22.8% (90/395), and 59.2% (109/184). ADC values, PSAD, and PI-RADS v2 scores were independent predictors of clinically significant cancer in targeted lesions (OR 2.25-8.78; P values <0.05; AUROC 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). Increases in PSAD were also associated with upgrade on systematic biopsy (OR 2.39-2.48; P values <0.05; AUROC 0.69, 95% CI 0.64-0.73). Conclusions ADC values and PSAD improve characterization of PI-RADS v2 score 4 or 5 lesions. Upgraded on systematic biopsy is slightly more likely with PSAD ≥0.15 and multiple small PI-RADS v2 score 3 or 4 lesions.

Resumo Objetivo: Comparar as predições de tumor com padrão 4 de Gleason dominante ou de tumor com extensão extraprostática utilizando o sistema Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2), combinado ou não a espectroscopia por ressonância magnética (1H-ERM). Materiais e Métodos: Trinta e nove pacientes submeteram-se a RM de 3 tesla com bobina endorretal, incluindo 1H-ERM, e prostatectomia. Dois radiologistas classificaram as principais lesões identificadas em cada caso utilizando PI-RADS v2 e escores de 1H-ERM. As análises estatísticas incluíram regressões logísticas, curvas receiver operating characteristic (ROC) e tabelas 2x2 para acurácia diagnóstica. Resultados: A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de câncer de próstata de alto grau foram 85,7% (57,1%) e 92,9% (100%), e 56% (68%) e 24% (24%). A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de extensão extraprostática (EEP) foram 64,0% (40%) e 20% (48%), e 50% (57,1%) e 71,4% (64,3%). As áreas das curvas ROC para a predição de câncer de alto grau foram 0,65 e 0,61 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,72 e 0,70 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (radiologistas 1 e 2, p = 0.04 e 0.21). Para a predição de EEP, as áreas das curvas ROC foram 0,54 e 0,60 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,55 e 0,61 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (p > 0.05). Conclusão: É possível que a 1H-ERM melhore a predição de câncer de alto grau quando combinada ao PI-RADS v2, em particular para lesões que recebem um escore PI-RADS v2 4; entretanto, ela não afeta a predição de EEP.

Abstract Objective: To compare the predictions of dominant Gleason pattern ≥ 4 or non-organ confined disease with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) with or without proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI). Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine men underwent 3-tesla endorectal multiparametric MRI including 1H-MRSI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADS v2 and 1H-MRSI scores to index lesions. Statistical analyses used logistic regressions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and 2x2 tables for diagnostic accuracies. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) were 85.7% (57.1%) and 92.9% (100%), and 56% (68.0%) and 24.0% (24.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) were 64.0% (40%) and 20.0% (48%), and 50.0% (57.1%) and 71.4% (64.3%). The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer were 0.65 and 0.61 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.72 and 0.70 when combined with 1H-MRSI (readers 1 and 2, p = 0.04 and 0.21). For prediction of EPE the AUC were 0.54 and 0.60 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.55 and 0.61 when combined with 1H-MRSI (p > 0.05). Conclusion: 1H-MRSI might improve the discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer when combined to PI-RADS v2, particularly for PI-RADS v2 score 4 lesions, but it does not affect the prediction of EPE.

Purpose: In this study, we investigated the ability of UroVysion™ to assess response to intravesical therapy in patients with high risk superficial bladder tumors. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing intravesical therapy for high risk superficial bladder tumors. Urine specimens were collected for UroVysion™ analysis before and immediately after a course of intravesical therapy. Cytology and cystoscopy were performed six weeks after treatment, using either a positive cytology or visible abnormality on cystoscopy as a prompt for biopsy. The operating characteristics of the UroVysion™ test were then determined. Results: 41 patients were identified in whom 47 cycles of induction and 41 cycles of maintenance intravesical therapy were given during the study period. This yielded a total of 88 treatment and evaluation cycles. Median follow-up was 9 months per induction (range 1-21 months) and 13 months per patient (range 1-25 months). A total of 133 urine samples were collected for UroVysion™ of which 40 were positive. Based upon standard clinical evaluation, 41 biopsies were performed which detected 20 recurrences. UroVysion™ testing performed immediately upon completion of therapy for the 41 patients undergoing biopsy yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85%, 61%, and 71%. Conclusions: The use of UroVysion™ following intravesical therapy for high-risk superficial bladder tumors helps to identify patients at high risk of refractory or recurrent disease who should undergo immediate biopsy under anesthesia.