including the need for numerous repeat surveillance biopsies. In this issue of the BJUI, Gallagher et al. [1] report the outcomes of an AS programme using selective repeat biopsy based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and PSA dynamics. The authors address the important issue of whether mpMRI can be used to safely avoid repeat biopsies in AS protocols.The evidence for repeat biopsies in AS is based on studies from the pre-MRI era, where up to 30% of men were upgraded on repeat systematic TRUS biopsy [2]. It has been established that TRUS biopsy is a highly unreliable test and misses a substantial proportion of clinically significant disease. The current approach requiring the repeated application of an unreliable test will not improve the systematic error inherent to the test. It is clear that the pathway needs to be updated for the mpMRI era, and the cohort of men in Gallagher et al.[1] provides valuable reallife clinical data of an mpMRI-based AS programme with a unique 4-year follow-up period.The results are encouraging, with upgrading occurring in only 1.8% of men with a prior negative MRI. With follow-up, progression to radical treatment was 12.8%, which is consistent with the established diagnostic performance of mpMRI. The authors seek further improvements by investigating if PSA dynamics can identify men with a negative MRI at risk of progression. They find that PSA velocity is strongly associated with subsequent progression (AUC 0.95, P < 0.001) and conclude that men on AS with low-risk disease can safely avoid biopsy in favour of MRI, PSA monitoring and selective re-biopsy.This study [1] supports a growing body of evidence that mpMRI may be adopted as the primary surveillance tool for men on AS. The finding regarding PSA velocity should be interpreted carefully as it contrasts with previous studies, which found that PSA dynamics have a limited role as independent predictors of disease progressions in AS [3]. A non-invasive alternative to biopsy would be a valuable addition to AS and improve its acceptability as a management option. The burden of repeat surveillance biopsies for men on AS should not be underestimated. Indeed, in the present study~30% of men declined biopsy in favour of continued mpMRI surveillance.The question is can we adapt our current standard AS approach for the mpMRI era? There are still many challenges and many unanswered questions. The cost-effectiveness of mpMRI surveillance programmes needs to be established and the lack of MRI capacity remains a significant obstacle in introducing mpMRI pathways. The optimal imaging interval and the natural history of mpMRI lesions are just a few of the questions that need further research. These are exciting times to be a researcher in this field and there is much work to do as we start to build the new evidence-base covering all the questions required for the mpMRI era. References 1 Gallagher KM, Christopher E, Cameron AJ et al. Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA d...

Objectives This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. Methods A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists’ experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7–9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. Results Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. Conclusions An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. Key Points • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

No abstract

No abstract

In the past 15 years, encouraging clinical results for the detection of small lymph node metastases was obtained by the use of Combidex‐enhanced MRI (CEM, also known as magnetic resonance lymphography). Withdrawal of the European Medicines Agency approval application by the manufacturer made it impossible for patients to benefit from this agent; a loss, especially for men with prostate cancer. Current conventional imaging techniques are not as accurate as CEM is, thus a surgical diagnostic exploration (extended lymph node dissection) is still the preferred technique to evaluate the lymph nodes, resulting in peri‐ and postoperative complications. In 2013, the Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc) obtained all licenses and documentation for the production process of Combidex (ferumoxtran‐10), and manufactured the contrast agent under supervision of the Department of Pharmacy. Since 2014, 310 men with prostate cancer have been examined with CEM in the Radboudumc. Within this cohort, seven minor possibly contrast‐related adverse effects were observed after administration of Combidex. As the contrast agent is now back again in the Netherlands, this review highlights the working mechanism, previous results, observed side effects since the reintroduction, and the future perspectives for Combidex. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2018, 10:e1471. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1471This article is categorized under: Diagnostic Tools > In Vivo Nanodiagnostics and ImagingTherapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease