Caroline M. Moore

Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the Prostate: Recommendations from an International Working Group.

BACKGROUND A systematic literature review of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy demonstrates poor adherence to the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) recommendations for the full and transparent reporting of diagnostic studies. OBJECTIVE To define and recommend Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Each member of a panel of 23 experts in urology, radiology, histopathology, and methodology used the RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to score a 258-statement premeeting questionnaire. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face meeting, and each statement was rescored after group discussion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Measures of agreement and consensus were calculated for each statement. The most important statements, based on group median score, the degree of group consensus, and the content of the group discussion, were used to create a checklist of reporting criteria (the START checklist). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The strongest recommendations were to report histologic results of standard and targeted cores separately using Gleason score and maximum cancer core length. A table comparing detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant disease by targeted and standard approaches should also be used. It was recommended to report the recruitment criteria for MRI-targeted biopsy, prior biopsy status of the population, a brief description of the MRI sequences, MRI reporting method, radiologist experience, and image registration technique. There was uncertainty about which histologic criteria constitute clinically significant cancer when the prostate is sampled using MRI-targeted biopsy, and it was agreed that a new definition of clinical significance in this setting needed to be derived in future studies. CONCLUSIONS Use of the START checklist would improve the quality of reporting in MRI-targeted biopsy studies and facilitate a comparison between standard and MRI-targeted approaches.

Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer—a review of current status and future promise

Debate is ongoing about the treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer, particularly in men who have low-risk disease detected by PSA screening. A balance is needed between the harms and benefits of treatment. New techniques are being developed that aim to offer similar treatment effects to current radical therapies, while reducing the associated harmful effects of these treatments. In this Review, we explore the potential of one such technique, photodynamic therapy (PDT), for the treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. PDT uses a photosensitizing drug that is activated in the prostate by low-power laser light, delivered using optical fibers. The fibers are placed within needles in the prostate, guided by transrectal ultrasound and a perineal template. Following the activation of the photosensitizer by light, and the formation of reactive oxygen species, necrosis occurs at the site of interaction between the photosensitizer, light and oxygen. Clinical studies are underway to investigate the use of PDT for primary and salvage treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. We review these studies, the potential strategies for enhanced photodynamic effects, and the current limitations of PDT for prostate cancer.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT There is great interest in using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To systematically review evidence regarding the use of MRI in men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Ovid Medline and Embase databases were searched for active surveillance, prostate cancer, and MRI from inception until April 25, 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A lesion on MRI suspicious for prostate cancer (positive MRI) is seen in two-thirds of men otherwise suitable for active surveillance. A positive MRI makes the identification of clinically significant disease at repeat biopsy more likely, especially when biopsies are targeted to suspicious MRI lesions. Radical prostatectomy data show that positive MRI is more likely to be associated with upgrading (Gleason score>3+3) than a negative MRI (43% vs 27%). A positive MRI is not significantly more likely to be associated with upstaging at radical prostatectomy (>T2) than a negative MRI (10% vs 8%). Although MRI is of interest in the monitoring of men on active surveillance, robust data on the use of repeat MRI in active surveillance are lacking. Prospective studies with clear definitions of radiological significance and progression are needed before this approach can be adopted. CONCLUSIONS MRI is useful for detection of clinically significant disease at initial assessment of men considering active surveillance. To use MRI as a monitoring tool in surveillance, it will be necessary to define both radiological significance and radiological progression. PATIENT SUMMARY This review assesses evidence for the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. MRI at the start of surveillance can detect clinically significant disease in one-third to half of men. There are few data to assess the use of MRI as a monitoring tool during surveillance, so there is a need to define significant disease on MRI and significant changes over time.

Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer|[mdash]|a review of current status and future promise

Debate is ongoing about the treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer, particularly in men who have low-risk disease detected by PSA screening. A balance is needed between the harms and benefits of treatment. New techniques are being developed that aim to offer similar treatment effects to current radical therapies, while reducing the associated harmful effects of these treatments. In this Review, we explore the potential of one such technique, photodynamic therapy (PDT), for the treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. PDT uses a photosensitizing drug that is activated in the prostate by low-power laser light, delivered using optical fibers. The fibers are placed within needles in the prostate, guided by transrectal ultrasound and a perineal template. Following the activation of the photosensitizer by light, and the formation of reactive oxygen species, necrosis occurs at the site of interaction between the photosensitizer, light and oxygen. Clinical studies are underway to investigate the use of PDT for primary and salvage treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. We review these studies, the potential strategies for enhanced photodynamic effects, and the current limitations of PDT for prostate cancer.

Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Image Targeted Prostate Biopsy Versus Transperineal Template Prostate Biopsy in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can be used to guide prostate biopsy by targeting biopsies to areas in the prostate at high risk for cancer. We compared the detection of clinically significant and insignificant cancer by transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and transperineal template guided prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 182 men with a lesion suspicious for cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging underwent transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy using a cognitive registration technique, followed by systematic transperineal template guided prostate biopsy. The primary outcome was the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clinical significance was defined using maximum cancer core length 4 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater (University College London definition 2). We secondarily evaluated other commonly used thresholds of clinically significant disease, including maximum cancer core length 6 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 4 + 3 or greater, maximum cancer core length 3 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater, and maximum cancer core length 2 or greater mm and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater. Strategies were statistically compared with the McNemar test. RESULTS Mean ± SD patient age was 63.3 ± 7.2 years. Median prostate specific antigen was 6.7 ng/ml (IQR 4.7-10.0). Clinically significant cancer was detected by magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and template guided prostate biopsy in 103 (57%) and 113 of the 182 men (62%) (p = 0.174), and clinically insignificant cancer was detected in 17 (9.3%) and 31 (17.0%), respectively (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS Prostate biopsy targeted to suspicious lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging has encouraging rates of detection of clinically significant cancer while also decreasing the detection rate of clinically insignificant cancer. This is achieved with fewer biopsy cores than for systematic template guided biopsy. Further prospective, multicenter, comparative trials of the performance of targeting strategies are needed to consider magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy an alternative to conventional systematic biopsy.

Multiparametric MR Imaging for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Validation Cohort Study with Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping as the Reference Standard

PURPOSE To evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for prostate cancer detection by using transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsies as the reference standard and to determine the potential ability of MP MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board exemption was granted by the local research ethics committee for this retrospective study. Included were 64 men (mean age, 62 years [range, 40-76]; mean prostate-specific antigen, 8.2 ng/mL [8.2 μg/L] [range, 2.1-43 ng/mL]), 51 with biopsy-proved cancer and 13 suspected of having clinically significant cancer that was biopsy negative or without prior biopsy. MP MR imaging included T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging (1.5 T, pelvic phased-array coil). Three radiologists independently reviewed images and were blinded to results of biopsy. Two-by-two tables were derived by using sectors of analysis of four quadrants, two lobes, and one whole prostate. Primary target definition for clinically significant disease necessary to be present within a sector of analysis on TTPM for that sector to be deemed positive was set at Gleason score of 3+4 or more and/or cancer core length involvement of 4 mm or more. Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated to determine ability of MP MR imaging to rule out cancer. Specificity, positive predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, accuracy (overall fraction correct), and area under receiver operating characteristic curves were also calculated. RESULTS Twenty-eight percent (71 of 256) of sectors had clinically significant cancer by primary endpoint definition. For primary endpoint definition (≥ 4 mm and/or Gleason score ≥ 3+4), sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratios were 58%-73%, 84%-89%, and 0.3-0.5, respectively. Specificity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratios were 71%-84%, 49%-63%, and 2.-3.44, respectively. Area under the curve values were 0.73-0.84. CONCLUSION Results of this study indicate that MP MR imaging has a high negative predictive value to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer and may potentially have clinical use in diagnostic pathways of men at risk.

Focal Therapy: Patients, Interventions, and Outcomes—A Report from a Consensus Meeting

Background Focal therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is an increasingly popular and rapidly evolving field. Objective To gather expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcome measures for focal therapy in clinical practice and trial design. Design, setting, and participants Fifteen experts in focal therapy followed a modified two-stage RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology process. All participants independently scored 246 statements prior to rescoring at a face-to-face meeting. The meeting occurred in June 2013 at the Royal Society of Medicine, London, supported by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department of Health. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty were calculated as the median panel score. Consensus was derived from the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry level. Results and limitations Of 246 statements, 154 (63%) reached consensus. Items of agreement included the following: patients with intermediate risk and patients with unifocal and multifocal PCa are eligible for focal treatment; magnetic resonance imaging–targeted or template-mapping biopsy should be used to plan treatment; planned treatment margins should be 5 mm from the known tumor; prostate volume or age should not be a primary determinant of eligibility; foci of indolent cancer can be left untreated when treating the dominant index lesion; histologic outcomes should be defined by targeted biopsy at 1 yr; residual disease in the treated area of ≤3 mm of Gleason 3 + 3 did not need further treatment; and focal retreatment rates of ≤20% should be considered clinically acceptable but subsequent whole-gland therapy deemed a failure of focal therapy. All statements are expert opinion and therefore constitute level 5 evidence and may not reflect wider clinical consensus. Conclusions The landscape of PCa treatment is rapidly evolving with new treatment technologies. This consensus meeting provides guidance to clinicians on current expert thinking in the field of focal therapy. Patient summary In this report we present expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcomes for clinicians working in focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer

Whats known on the subject? and What does the study add?

TOOKAD® Soluble vascular‐targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy: determination of optimal treatment conditions and assessment of effects in patients with localised prostate cancer

To evaluate the optimal treatment conditions and effects of TOOKAD® Soluble vascular‐targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. To evaluate the safety and quality of life after TOOKAD® Soluble VTP treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer.

Minimally-invasive technologies in uro-oncology: The role of cryotherapy, HIFU and photodynamic therapy in whole gland and focal therapy of localised prostate cancer

The use of minimally-invasive ablative therapies in localised prostate cancer offer potential for a middle ground between active surveillance and radical therapy. This article reviews the evidence for cryotherapy, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and photodynamic therapy in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. These ablative technologies can deliver a minimally invasive, day case treatment with effective early cancer control and low genitourinary morbidity. In addition, all have the ability to deliver focal therapy of only the malignant lesions within the prostate.