Dataset Information

ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study: protocol for a single-centre feasibility study inviting men for prostate cancer screening using MRI.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI.

Methods and analysis

The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer.

Ethics and dissemination

ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566).

SUBMITTER: Marsden T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487192 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A better assessment of individualized prostate cancer (PrCa) risk is needed to improve screening. The use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for screening in the general population has limitations and is not currently advocated. Approximately 100 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been identified that are associated with the risk of developing PrCa. The PROFILE pilot study explored the feasibility of using SNP profiling in men with a family history (FH) of PrCa to investigate the probability of detecting PrCa at prostate biopsy (PB). The primary aim of this pilot study was to determine the safety and feasibility of PrCa screening using transrectal ultrasound-guided PB with or without diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in men with a FH. A secondary aim was to evaluate the potential use of SNP profiling as a screening tool in this population.A total of 100 men aged 40-69 years with a FH of PrCa underwent PB, regardless of their baseline PSA level. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were calculated for each participant using 71 common PrCa susceptibility alleles. We treated the disease outcome at PB as the outcome variable and evaluated its associations with the PRS, PSA level, and DW-MRI findings using univariate logistic regression.Of the 100 men, 25 were diagnosed with PrCa, of whom 12 (48%) had clinically significant disease. Four adverse events occurred and no deaths. The PSA level and age at study entry were associated with PrCa at PB (p = .00037 and p = .00004, respectively).The results of the present pilot study have demonstrated that PB is a feasible and safe method of PrCa screening in men with a FH, with a high proportion of PrCa identified requiring radical treatment. It is feasible to collect data on PrCa-risk SNPs to evaluate their combined effect as a potential screening tool. A larger prospective study powered to detect statistical associations is in progress.Prostate biopsy is a feasible and safe approach to prostate cancer screening in men with a family history and detects a high proportion of prostate cancer that needs radical treatment. Calculating a polygenic risk score using prostate cancer risk single nucleotide polymorphisms could be a potential future screening tool for prostate cancer.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of automatic longitudinal analysis of consecutive biparametric MRI (bpMRI) scans to detect clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsThis retrospective study included a multi-center dataset of 1513 patients who underwent bpMRI (T2 + DWI) between 2014 and 2020, of whom 73 patients underwent at least two consecutive bpMRI scans and repeat biopsies. A deep learning PCa detection model was developed to produce a heatmap of all PIRADS ≥ 2 lesions across prior and current studies. The heatmaps for each patient's prior and current examination were used to extract differential volumetric and likelihood features reflecting explainable changes between examinations. A machine learning classifier was trained to predict from these features csPCa (ISUP > 1) at the current examination according to biopsy. A classifier trained on the current study only was developed for comparison. An extended classifier was developed to incorporate clinical parameters (PSA, PSA density, and age). The cross-validated diagnostic accuracies were compared using ROC analysis. The diagnostic performance of the best model was compared to the radiologist scores.ResultsThe model including prior and current study (AUC 0.81, CI: 0.69, 0.91) resulted in a higher (p = 0.04) diagnostic accuracy than the current only model (AUC 0.73, CI: 0.61, 0.84). Adding clinical variables further improved diagnostic performance (AUC 0.86, CI: 0.77, 0.93). The diagnostic performance of the surveillance AI model was significantly better (p = 0.02) than of radiologists (AUC 0.69, CI: 0.54, 0.81).ConclusionsOur proposed AI-assisted surveillance of prostate MRI can pick up explainable, diagnostically relevant changes with promising diagnostic accuracy.Key points• Sequential prostate MRI scans can be automatically evaluated using a hybrid deep learning and machine learning approach. • The diagnostic accuracy of our csPCa detection AI model improved by including clinical parameters.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the clinical implications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) negative prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy.MethodsWe included all men without prior diagnosis of PCa undergoing transperineal template saturation ± fusion-guided targeted biopsy of the prostate between November 2014 and March 2018. Before biopsy, all patients underwent MRI and biopsies were performed irrespective of imaging results. Baseline characteristics, imaging, biopsy results, and follow-up information were retrieved from the patient charts. Patients were classified as either MRI negative (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PIRADS] ≤ 2) or positive (PIRADS ≥ 3). ISUP grade group 1 was defined as clinically nonsignificant (nsPCa) and ≥2 as clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Primary outcome was the individual therapeutic decision after diagnosis of PCa stratified according to MRI visibility. Secondary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of MRI, and the urooncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).ResultsFrom 515 patients undergoing prostate biopsy, 171 (33.2%) patients had a negative and 344 (66.8%) a positive MRI. Pathology review stratified for MRI negative and positive cases revealed nsPCa in 27 (15.8%) and 32 (9.3%) and csPCa in 26 (15.2%) and 194 (56.4%) of the patients, respectively. The rate of active treatment in the MRI negative was lower compared with the MRI positive cohort (12.3% vs. 53.2%; odd ratio [OR] = 0.12; p < 0.001). While men with negative MRI were more likely to undergo active surveillance (AS) than MRI positive patients (18.1% vs. 10.8%; OR = 1.84; p = 0.027), they rarely underwent RP (6.4% vs. 40.7%, OR = 0.10; p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that a negative MRI was independently protective for active treatment (OR = 0.32, p = 0.014). The specificity, sensitivity, negative, and positive predictive value of MRI for detection of csPCa were 49.2%, 88.2%, 56.4%, and 84.8%, respectively. The rate of adverse clinicopathological outcome features (pT3/4, ISUP ≥4, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA]-persistence) following RP was 4.7% for men with MRI negative compared to 17.4% for men with MRI positive PCa (OR = 3.1, p = 0.19).ConclusionOnly few men with MRI negative PCa need active cancer treatment at the time of diagnosis, while the majority opts for AS. Omitting prostate biopsies and performing a follow-up MRI may be a safe alternative to reduce the number of unnecessary interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) became recognised in investigating those with suspected prostate cancer between 2010 and 2012; in the USA, the preventative task force moratorium on PSA screening was a strong catalyst. In a few short years, it has been adopted into daily urological and oncological practice. The pace of clinical uptake, born along by countless papers proclaiming high accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, has sparked much debate about the timing of mpMRI within the traditional biopsy-driven clinical pathways. There are strongly held opposing views on using mpMRI as a triage test regarding the need for biopsy and/or guiding the biopsy pattern. OBJECTIVE:To review the evidence base and present a position paper on the role of mpMRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. METHODS:A subgroup of experts from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group conducted literature review and face to face and electronic exchanges to draw up a position statement. RESULTS:This paper considers diagnostic strategies for clinically significant prostate cancer; current national and international guidance; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI in detection of clinically significant and clinically insignificant neoplasms; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI on biopsy strategies and targeting; the notion of mpMRI within a wider risk evaluation on a patient by patient basis; the problems that beset mpMRI including inter-observer variability. CONCLUSIONS:The paper concludes with a set of suggestions for using mpMRI to influence who to biopsy and who not to biopsy at diagnosis. KEY POINTS:• Adopt mpMRI as the first, and primary, investigation in the workup of men with suspected prostate cancer. • PI-RADS assessment categories 1 and 2 have a high negative predictive value in excluding significant disease, and systematic biopsy may be postponed, especially in men with low-risk of disease following additional risk stratification. • PI-RADS assessment category lesions 4 and 5 should be targeted; PI-RADS assessment category lesion 3 may be biopsied as a target, as part of systematic biopsies or may be observed depending on risk stratification.

Project description:ObjectiveAssess radiologists' contribution to variation in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).MethodsThis institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary, academic, National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center with a multidisciplinary prostate cancer program. Men undergoing mpMRI examinations from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, with elevated PSA (≥4 ng/mL) and biopsy within 6 months pre- or post-MRI or prostatectomy within 6 months post-mpMRI were included. Univariate and multivariable hierarchical logistic regression assessed impact of patient, provider, mpMRI examination, mpMRI report, and pathology factors on the diagnosis of Grade Group ≥ 2 csPCa.ResultsStudy cohort included 960 MRIs in 928 men, mean age 64.0 years (SD ± 7.4), and 59.8% (555 of 928) had csPCa. Interpreting radiologist was not significant individually (P > .999) or combined with mpMRI ordering physician and physician performing biopsy or prostatectomy (P = .41). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, P = .04), PI-RADS category 4 (OR 2.52, P < .001), and PI-RADS category 5 (OR 4.99, P < .001) assessment compared with no focal lesion; PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.46, P < .001), 0.15 to 0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 2.77, P < .001), or ≥0.2 ng/mL/cc (OR 4.52, P < .001); private insurance (reference = Medicare, OR 0.52, P = .001), and unambiguous extraprostatic extension on mpMRI (OR 2.94, P = .01) were independently associated with csPCa. PI-RADS 3 assessment (OR 1.18, P = .56), age (OR 0.99, P = .39), and African American race (OR 0.90, P = .75) were not.DiscussionAlthough there is known in-practice variation in radiologists' interpretation of mpMRI, in our multidisciplinary prostate cancer program we found no significant radiologist-attributable variation in csPCa detection.

Project description:Diabetic men have decreased risk for prostate cancer (PCa) overall and lower PSA compared to non-diabetics. This may affect the outcomes of PSA-based screening. We investigated the effect of PSA-based screening at 4-year intervals on PCa incidence and mortality separately among users and non-users of antidiabetic medication with the hypothesis that screening would detect less low-grade cancer and more high-grade cancer in diabetic men. A cohort of 80,458 men from the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) were linked to national prescription database to obtain information on antidiabetic medication purchases. PCa risk and mortality were compared between the FinRSPC screening arm (SA) and the control arm (CA) separately among users and non-users of antidiabetic medication. Among antidiabetic medication users median PSA was lower than in non-users (0.93 and 1.09 ng/ml, respectively, P for difference = 0.001). Screening increased overall PCa incidence compared to CA after the first screen both among medication users and non-users (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08-1.60 and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.44-1.66, respectively). On the second and third screen the difference between SA and CA attenuated only among medication users. Detection of Gleason 6 tumors was lower among medication users, whereas no difference was observed in detection of Gleason 8-10 cancers. Concordantly, screening affected PCa mortality similarly regardless of antidiabetic medication use (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.07 and HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.33 among users and non-users after three screens, respectively. P for difference = 0.18). Median PSA is lower in men using antidiabetic drugs than among non-users. Systematic PSA screening detects less low-risk tumors among medication users, whereas detection of high-risk tumors and mortality effects are similar regardless of medication use. This suggests that antidiabetic medication users may form a suitable target group for PCa screening, with less screening-related overdiagnosis of indolent tumors.