Jonathan Richenberg

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.

The increasing detection of small testicular lesions by ultrasound (US) in adults can lead to unnecessary orchiectomies. This article describes their nature, reviews the available literature on this subject and illustrates some classical lesions. We also suggest recommendations to help characterization and management. The ESUR scrotal imaging subcommittee searched for original and review articles published before May 2015 using the Pubmed and Medline databases. Key words used were ‘testicular ultrasound’, ‘contrast-enhanced sonography’, ‘sonoelastography’, ‘magnetic resonance imaging’, ‘testis-sparing surgery’, ‘testis imaging’, ‘Leydig cell tumour’, ‘testicular cyst’. Consensus was obtained amongst the members of the subcommittee, urologist and medical oncologist. Simple cysts are frequent and benign, and do not require follow up or surgery. Incidentally discovered small solid testicular lesions detected are benign in up to 80 %, with Leydig cell tumours being the most frequent. However, the presence of microliths, macrocalcifications and hypoechoic areas surrounding the nodule are findings suggestive of malignant disease. Asymptomatic small testicular lesions found on ultrasound are mainly benign, but findings such as microliths or hypoechoic regions surrounding the nodules may indicate malignancy. Colour Doppler US remains the basic examination for characterization. The role of newer imaging modalities in characterization is evolving. • Characterization of testicular lesions is primarily based on US examination. • The role of MRI, sonoelastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound is evolving. • Most small non-palpable testicular lesions seen on ultrasound are benign simple cysts. • Leydig cell tumours are the most frequent benign lesions. • Associated findings like microliths or hypoechoic regions may indicate malignancy.

The subcommittee on scrotal imaging, appointed by the board of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), have produced guidelines on imaging and follow-up in testicular microlithiasis (TML). The authors and a superintendent university librarian independently performed a computer-assisted literature search of medical databases: MEDLINE and EMBASE. A further parallel literature search was made for the genetic conditions Klinefelter’s syndrome and McCune-Albright syndrome. Proposed guidelines are: follow-up is not advised in patients with isolated TML in the absence of risk factors (see Key Points below); annual ultrasound (US) is advised for patients with risk factors, up to the age of 55; if TML is found with a testicular mass, urgent referral to a specialist centre is advised. Consensus opinion of the scrotal subcommittee of the ESUR is that the presence of TML alone in the absence of other risk factors is not an indication for regular scrotal US, further US screening or biopsy. US is recommended in the follow-up of patients at risk, where risk factors other than microlithiasis are present. Risk factors are discussed and the literature and recommended guidelines are presented in this article. • Follow up advised only in patients with TML and additional risk factors. • Annual US advised for patients with risk factors up to age 55. • If TML is found with testicular mass, urgent specialist referral advised. • Risk factors – personal/ family history of GCT, maldescent, orchidopexy, testicular atrophy.

Ultrasound surveillance of patients with testicular microlithiasis (TM) has been advocated following the reported association with testicular cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the evidence base supporting such surveillance.