Explore the vast range of titles available.

Population-based screening showed that men over age 50 with PSA of 3 ng per milliliter or higher and negative MRI results could safely forgo biopsy. Detection of clinically significant cancer among men with positive MRI results who underwent MRI-directed and standard biopsies was similar to that for the standard biopsy group, but the MRI group had fewer findings of clinically insignificant cancers.

Guiding the beta-emitting isotope lutetium-177 to prostate cancer lesions with the prostate-specific membrane antigen–targeted radioligand 177 Lu-PSMA-617 plus using standard care was compared with standard care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The radioligand therapy prolonged progression-free and overall survival. Adverse effects were more common, but quality of life was maintained.

Prostate-cancer biopsy directed at areas of MRI abnormality was compared with standard transrectal ultrasonographic biopsy for diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. MRI-targeted biopsy identified more high-risk cancers and fewer clinically insignificant tumors.

Prostate cancer diagnosis requires biopsy, traditionally performed under local anaesthetic with ultrasound guidance via a transrectal approach (TRUS). Local anaesthetic ultrasound-guided transperineal biopsy (LATP) is gaining popularity in this setting; however, there is uncertainty regarding prostate sampling, infection rates, tolerability, side-effects, and cost-effectiveness. TRANSLATE was a randomised clinical trial that aimed to compare detection of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 2 or higher prostate cancer, side-effects, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes, after LATP versus TRUS biopsy. In this randomised clinical trial which was done at ten hospitals in the UK, patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if investigated for suspected prostate cancer based on elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen or abnormal digital rectal examination, and if biopsy-naive having received pre-biopsy MRI on a 1·5 or higher Tesla scanner. Individuals were excluded if they had any previous prostate biopsy, extensive local disease easily detectable by any biopsy (prostate-specific antigen >50 ng/mL or entire gland replaced by tumour on MRI), symptoms of concurrent or recent urinary tract infection, history of immunocompromise, need for enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis, absent rectum, or inability to position in lithotomy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LATP or TRUS biopsy, using web-based software with a randomisation sequence using a minimisation algorithm to ensure balanced allocation across biopsy groups for minimisation factors (recruitment site, and location of the MRI lesion). The primary outcome was detection of GGG 2 or higher prostate cancer, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned to treatment who had a biopsy result available). Key secondary endpoints assessing post-biopsy adverse events were infection, bleeding, urinary and sexual function, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05179694) and at ISRCTN (ISRCTN98159689), and is complete. Between Dec 3, 2021, and Sept 26, 2023, 2078 (76%) of 2727 assessed individuals were eligible, and 1126 (41%) of 2727 agreed to participate. 1044 (93%) of the 1126 participants were White British. Participants were allocated to TRUS (n=564) or LATP (n=562) biopsy, and were followed up at time of biopsy, and at 7 days, 35 days, and 4 months post-biopsy. We found GGG 2 or higher prostate cancer in 329 (60%) of 547 participants with biopsy results randomly assigned to LATP compared with 294 (54%) of 540 participants with biopsy results randomly assigned to TRUS biopsy (odds ratio [OR] 1·32 [95% CI 1·03–1·70]; p=0·031). Infection requiring admission to hospital within 35 days post-biopsy occurred in 2 (<1%) of 562 participants in the LATP group compared with 9 (2%) of 564 in the TRUS group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the reporting of overall biopsy-related complications (LATP 454 [81%] of 562 vs TRUS 436 [77%] of 564, OR 1·23 [95% CI 0·93 to 1·65]), urinary retention requiring catheterisation (LATP 35 [6%] of 562 vs TRUS 27 [5%] of 564), urinary symptoms (median International Prostate Symptom Score: LATP 8 [IQR 4–14] vs TRUS 8 [4–13], OR 0·36 [95% CI –0·38 to 1·10]), nor sexual function (median International Index of Erectile Function score: LATP 5 [2–25] vs TRUS 8 [3–24], OR –0·60 [–1·79 to 0·58]) at 4 months after biopsy. Trial participants more commonly reported LATP biopsy to be immediately painful and embarrassing compared with TRUS (LATP 216 [38%] of 562 vs TRUS 153 [27%] of 564; OR 1·84 [95% CI 1·40 to 2·43]). Serious adverse events occurred in 14 (2%) of 562 participants in the LATP group and 25 (4%) of 564 in the TRUS group. Among biopsy-naive individuals being investigated for possible prostate cancer, biopsy with LATP led to greater detection of GGG 2 or higher disease compared with TRUS. These findings will help to inform patients, clinicians, clinical guidelines, and policy makers regarding the important trade-offs between LATP and TRUS prostate biopsy. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment.

Objectives The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score assesses the quality of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). A score of 1 means all sequences are below the minimum standard of diagnostic quality, 3 implies that the scan is of sufficient diagnostic quality, and 5 means that all three sequences are of optimal diagnostic quality. We investigated the inter-reader reproducibility of the PI-QUAL score in patients enrolled in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Methods We analysed the scans of 103 patients on different MR systems and vendors from 12 different hospitals. Two dedicated radiologists highly experienced in prostate mpMRI independently assessed the PI-QUAL score for each scan. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa with standard quadratic weighting (κw) and percent agreement. Results The agreement for each single PI-QUAL score was strong (κw = 0.85 and percent agreement = 84%). A similar agreement (κw = 0.82 and percent agreement = 84%) was observed when the scans were clustered into three groups (PI-QUAL 1–2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5). The agreement in terms of diagnostic quality for each single sequence was highest for T2-weighted imaging (92/103 scans; 89%), followed by dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (91/103; 88%) and diffusion-weighted imaging (80/103; 78%). Conclusion We observed strong reproducibility in the assessment of PI-QUAL between two radiologists with high expertise in prostate mpMRI. At present, PI-QUAL offers clinicians the only available tool for evaluating and reporting the quality of prostate mpMRI in a systematic manner but further refinements of this scoring system are warranted. Key Points • Inter-reader agreement for each single Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score (i.e., PI-QUAL 1 to PI-QUAL 5) was strong, with weighted kappa = 0.85 (95% confidence intervals: 0.51 – 1) and percent agreement = 84%. • Interobserver agreement was strong when the scans were clustered into three groups according to the ability (or not) to rule in and to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer (i.e., PI-QUAL 1-2 vs PI-QUAL 3 vs PI-QUAL 4–5), with weighted kappa = 0.82 (95% confidence intervals: 0.68 – 0.96) and percent agreement = 84%. • T2-weighted acquisitions were the most compliant with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2.0 technical recommendations and were the sequences of highest diagnostic quality for both readers in 95/103 (92%) scans, followed by dynamic contrast enhanced acquisition with 81/103 (79%) scans and lastly by diffusion-weighted imaging with 79/103 (77%) scans.

Background: Transrectal prostate biopsy has limited diagnostic accuracy. Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE) was a paired-cohort confirmatory study designed to assess diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men requiring a repeat biopsy. Methods: All underwent 3 T mpMRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies (TTPM biopsies). Multiparametric MRI was reported using Likert scores and radiologists were blinded to initial biopsies. Men were blinded to mpMRI results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or cancer core length ⩾6 mm. Results: Two hundred and forty-nine had both tests with mean (s.d.) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 ng ml (4.98–9.50), median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1–2) and mean (s.d.) gland size 37 ml (15.5). On TTPM biopsies, 103 (41%) had clinically significant prostate cancer. Two hundred and fourteen (86%) had a positive prostate mpMRI using Likert score ⩾3; sensitivity was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92–99), specificity 21.9% (15.5–29.5), negative predictive value (NPV) 91.4% (76.9–98.1) and positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7% (35.2–47.8). One hundred and twenty-nine (51.8%) had a positive mpMRI using Likert score ⩾4; sensitivity was 80.6% (71.6–87.7), specificity 68.5% (60.3–75.9), NPV 83.3% (75.4–89.5) and PPV 64.3% (55.4–72.6). Conclusions: In men advised to have a repeat prostate biopsy, prostate mpMRI could be used to safely avoid a repeat biopsy with high sensitivity for clinically significant cancers. However, such a strategy can miss some significant cancers and overdiagnose insignificant cancers depending on the mpMRI score threshold used to define which men should be biopsied.

BackgroundArtificial intelligence ultrasound of prostate (AIUSP)-targeted biopsy has been used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. The objective of this prospective multi-center head-to-head clinical randomized comparative trail (RCT) is to compare PCa detection rate in the TRUS-guided 12-core standard systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) group and cognitive fused mpMRI-guided 12-core biopsy (mpMRI) group against AIUSP group.MethodsFour hundred patients were randomized to three arms and underwent biopsies by TRUS-SB (n = 133), mpMRI (n = 134), and AIUSP (n = 133) between January 2015 and December 2017. In TRUS-SB group, a standard 12-core systematic biopsy was performed. In mpMRI group, mpMRI-suspicious lesions (PI-RADS 3–5) were targeted by 2-core biopsy followed by a 10-core systematic biopsy. Otherwise, 12-core systematic biopsy was performed. In AIUSP group, a 6-core targeted biopsy was performed. The primary endpoint was PCa detection rate.ResultsAIUSP detected the highest rate of PCa (66/133, 49.6%) compared to TRUS-SB (46/133, 34.6%, p = 0.036) and mpMRI (48/134, 35.8%, p = 0.052). Compared to TRUS-SB (35/133, 26.3%) and mpMRI (31/134, 23.1%) groups, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rate was 32.3% (43/133) in AIUSP group. Overall biopsy core positive rate in the TRUS-SB group (11.0%, 176/1598) and in the mpMRI group (12.7%, 204/1608) was significantly lower than that in the AIUSP group (22.7%, 181/798, p < 0.001).ConclusionsAIUSP detected the highest rate of overall and significant PCa compared to TRUS-SB and mpMRI, and could be used as an alternative to systematic biopsy in the future.RegistrationThis trial was registered in ISRCTN (ISRCTN18033113).

Key Points • It is mandatory to evaluate the image quality of a prostate MRI scan, and to mention this quality in the report. • PI-QUAL v1 is an essential starting tool to standardize the evaluation of the quality of prostate MR-images as objectively as possible. • PI-QUAL will step by step develop into a reliable quality assessment tool to ensure that the first step of the MRI pathway is as accurate as possible.

Purpose Our study aims to determine whether there are differences in the degree of detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and CsPCa between fusion prostate biopsy (FPB), cognitive biopsy (PCB), and randomized, systematic biopsy (SB). Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out of 195 patients with suspected PCa at the San Cecilio University Clinical Hospital in Granada who underwent a prostate biopsy between January and December 2021. Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, patients undergoing FPB transperineally with ultrasound BK 3000 ( N  = 87); group 2, PCB ( N  = 59) transperineally; and group 3, transrectal SB ( N  = 49), the latter two, with an ultrasound BK Specto. Results We found differences in favor of image-directed biopsies (FPB and PCB) with a percentage of positive biopsies of 52.8% and 50%, respectively, compared to 41.4% with SB, but without these differences being significant. Given the controversy in performing prostate biopsies in PI-RADS 3 lesions reported in the literature, a subanalysis was performed excluding the FPB performed for PI-RADS 3 lesions (PI-RADS 4 and 5 are included), finding significant differences when comparing FPB with PCB and SB (group 1, 64% vs group 2, 45.8%; p  = 0.05) (group 1, 64% vs group 3, 42.9%; p  = 0.035). Conclusion With the results obtained in our series, we conclude that the finding of a PI-RADS 3 lesion in mpMRI should not be an absolute criterion to indicate prostate biopsy. On the other hand, for PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions, FPB is recommended, which in this case turns out to be superior to PCB and SB.

Significance: Processing and diagnosing a set of 12 prostate biopsies using conventional histology methods typically take at least one day. A rapid and accurate process performed while the patient is still on-site could significantly improve the patient’s quality of life. Aim: We develop and assess the feasibility of a one-hour-to-diagnosis (1Hr2Dx) method for processing and providing a preliminary diagnosis of a set of 12 prostate biopsies. Approach: We developed a fluorescence staining, optical clearing, and 3D open-top light-sheet microscopy workflow to enable 12 prostate needle core biopsies to be processed and diagnosed within an hour of receipt. We analyzed 44 biopsies by the 1Hr2Dx method, which does not consume tissue. The biopsies were then processed for routine, slide-based 2D histology. Three pathologists independently evaluated the 3D 1Hr2Dx and 2D slide-based datasets in a blinded, randomized fashion. Turnaround times were recorded, and the accuracy of our method was compared with gold-standard slide-based histology. Results: The average turnaround time for tissue processing, imaging, and diagnosis was 44.5 min. The sensitivity and specificity of 1Hr2Dx in diagnosing cancer were both >90  %  . Conclusions: The 1Hr2Dx method has the potential to improve patient care by providing an accurate preliminary diagnosis within an hour of biopsy.