Froemming, Adam

Abstract Purpose To assess if PSA density (PSAD) velocity is a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods Patients undergoing prostate MR for suspected csPCa between 2017 and 2023 were included. Of these, patients who underwent two or more MR exams within 0.3 to 2 years to each other and pathological confirmation within 1 year after the last MR were identified. PI-RADS score, patient age, screening or active surveillance (AS), PSA, PSAD, PSA-velocity and PSAD-velocity were assessed if they were predictor of csPCa. For univariate analysis, all variables were assessed using student t or chi-square tests. When variables were considered significant, variables were entered into multivariate logistic regression model. Results 23,244 MRs were performed (17,703 screening, 5,541AS). 1,174 patients (mean age: 65.9) met the inclusion criteria, and 550 patients (47%) were diagnosed with csPCa. On univariate analysis, PI-RADS score (p<.0001), age (67.0 vs 64.9, p<.0001), AS exam (67% vs 59%, p = 0.004), PSA (7.5 vs 6.6, p<.001 ), PSAD (0.16 vs 0.12, p<.0001) and PSAD-velocity (0.023 vs 0.012, p = 0.005 ) were predictors of csPCa but PSA-velocity (1.4 vs 1.2, p=.4) was not. On multivariate analysis, PI-RADS score (p<.0001), age (p<.0001), AS exam (p<.0001), PSA (p<.0001) and PSAD (p<.0001) remained significant predictors, but PSAD-velocity was not (p=.1). Conclusions Higher PSAD-velocity was associated with presence of csPCa on univariate analysis but not on multivariate analysis when combined with other predictors such PI-RADS score, age, and PSAD.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.