Background Data regarding the prospective performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 alone and in combination with quantitative MRI features for prostate cancer detection is limited. Purpose To assess lesion-based clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates in different PI-RADS version 2.1 categories and to identify MRI features that could improve csPCa detection. Materials and Methods This single-center prospective study included men with suspected or known prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/US-guided biopsy from April 2019 to December 2021. MRI scans were prospectively evaluated using PI-RADS version 2.1. Atypical transition zone (TZ) nodules were upgraded to category 3 if marked diffusion restriction was present. Lesions with an International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade of 2 or higher (range, 1-5) were considered csPCa. MRI features, including three-dimensional diameter, relative lesion volume (lesion volume divided by prostate volume), sphericity, and surface to volume ratio (SVR), were obtained from lesion contours delineated by the radiologist. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted at the lesion and participant levels to determine features associated with csPCa. Results In total, 454 men (median age, 67 years [IQR, 62-73 years]) with 838 lesions were included. The csPCa rates for lesions categorized as PI-RADS 1 (n = 3), 2 (n = 170), 3 (n = 197), 4 (n = 319), and 5 (n = 149) were 0%, 9%, 14%, 37%, and 77%, respectively. csPCa rates of PI-RADS 4 lesions were lower than PI-RADS 5 lesions (P < .001) but higher than PI-RADS 3 lesions (P < .001). Upgraded PI-RADS 3 TZ lesions were less likely to harbor csPCa compared with their nonupgraded counterparts (4% [one of 26] vs 20% [20 of 99], P = .02). Predictors of csPCa included relative lesion volume (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001), SVR (OR, 6.2; P = .02), and extraprostatic extension (EPE) scores of 2 (OR, 9.3; P < .001) and 3 (OR, 4.1; P = .02). Conclusion The rates of csPCa differed between consecutive PI-RADS categories of 3 and higher. MRI features, including lesion volume, shape, and EPE scores of 2 and 3, predicted csPCa. Upgrading of PI-RADS category 3 TZ lesions may result in unnecessary biopsies. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Goh in this issue.

The role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer is well-established. Based on the limited role of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in PI-RADS v2.1, the risk of potential side effects, and the increased cost and time, there has been an increase in studies advocating for the omission of DCE from MRI assessments. Per PI-RADS v2.1, DCE is indicated in the assessment of PI-RADS 3 lesions in the peripheral zone, with its most pronounced effect when T2WI and DWI are of insufficient quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and reporting in the literature from the past 5 years regarding the use of DCE in prostate MRI, especially with respect to the indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1, and to describe the different approaches used across the studies. We searched for studies investigating the use of bpMRI and/or mpMRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer between January 2017 and April 2022 in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Through the search process, a total of 269 studies were gathered and 41 remained after abstract and full-text screening. The following information was extracted from the eligible studies: general clinical and technical characteristics of the studies, the number of PI-RADS 3 lesions, different definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy thresholds, reference standard methods, and number and experience of readers. Forty-one studies were included in the study. Only 51% (21/41) of studies reported the prevalence of csPCa in their equivocal lesion (PI-RADS category 3 lesions) subgroups. Of the included studies, none (0/41) performed a stratified sub-analysis of the DCE benefit versus MRI quality and 46% (19/41) made explicit statements about removing MRI scans based on a range of factors including motion, noise, and image artifacts. Furthermore, the number of studies investigating the role of DCE using readers with varying experience was relatively low. This review demonstrates that a high proportion of the studies investigating whether bpMRI can replace mpMRI did not transparently report information inherent to their study design concerning the key indications of DCE, such as the number of clinically insignificant/significant PI-RADS 3 lesions, nor did they provide any sub-analyses to test image quality, with some removing bad quality MRI scans altogether, or reader-experience-dependency indications for DCE. For the studies that reported on most of the DCE indications, their conclusions about the utility of DCE were heavily definition-dependent (with varying definitions of csPCa and of the PI-RADS category biopsy significance threshold). Reporting the information inherent to the study design and related to the specific indications for DCE as stated in PI-RADS v2.1 is needed to determine whether DCE is helpful or not. With most of the recent literature being retrospective and not including the data related to DCE indications in particular, the ongoing dispute between bpMRI and mpMRI is likely to linger.

A deep learning–based algorithm automatically detected cancerous lesions on prostate biparametric MRI scans with reasonable performance and reliably predicted clinically significant prostate cancer at biopsy.

Genitourinary (GU) system is among the most commonly involved malignancy sites in the human body. Imaging plays a crucial role not only in diagnosis of cancer but also in disease management and its prognosis. However, interpretation of conventional imaging methods such as CT or MR imaging (MRI) usually demonstrates variability across different readers and institutions. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising technology that could improve the patient care by providing helpful input to human readers through lesion detection algorithms and lesion classification systems. Moreover, the robustness of these models may be valuable in automating time-consuming tasks such as organ and lesion segmentations. Herein, we review the current state of imaging and existing challenges in GU malignancies, particularly for cancers of prostate, kidney and bladder; and briefly summarize the recent AI-based solutions to these challenges.

Purpose To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in detecting overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)-positive lesions on paired external and in-house biparametric MRI (bpMRI) scans and assess performance differences between each dataset. Materials and Methods This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent prostate MRI at an external institution and were rescanned at the authors' institution between May 2015 and May 2022. A genitourinary radiologist performed prospective readouts on in-house MRI scans following the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 or 2.1 and retrospective image quality assessments for all scans. A subgroup of patients underwent an MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy. A bpMRI-based lesion detection AI model previously developed using a completely separate dataset was tested on both MRI datasets. Detection rates were compared between external and in-house datasets with use of the paired comparison permutation tests. Factors associated with AI detection performance were assessed using multivariable generalized mixed-effects models, incorporating features selected through forward stepwise regression based on the Akaike information criterion. Results The study included 201 male patients (median age, 66 years [IQR, 62-70 years]; prostate-specific antigen density, 0.14 ng/mL² [IQR, 0.10-0.22 ng/mL²]) with a median interval between external and in-house MRI scans of 182 days (IQR, 97-383 days). For intraprostatic lesions, AI detected 39.7% (149 of 375) on external and 56.0% (210 of 375) on in-house MRI scans (P < .001). For csPCa-positive lesions, AI detected 61% (54 of 89) on external and 79% (70 of 89) on in-house MRI scans (P < .001). On external MRI scans, better overall lesion detection was associated with a higher PI-RADS score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.57; P = .005), larger lesion diameter (OR = 3.96; P < .001), better diffusion-weighted MRI quality (OR = 1.53; P = .02), and fewer lesions at MRI (OR = 0.78; P = .045). Better csPCa detection was associated with a shorter MRI interval between external and in-house scans (OR = 0.58; P = .03) and larger lesion size (OR = 10.19; P < .001). Conclusion The AI model exhibited modest performance in identifying both overall and csPCa-positive lesions on external bpMRI scans. Keywords: MR Imaging, Urinary, Prostate Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.