The prostate unit organizational model, from imaging to management: State of art

Lucia Federica  Carpagnano; Valentina Testini; Laura Eusebi; Riccardo Guglielmi; Francesco Saverio Guerra; Emanuele Tato'; Giuseppe Guglielmi

doi:10.23750/abm.2026.18550

Authors

Lucia Federica Carpagnano Health Management, “Dimiccoli” Hospital, Viale Ippocrate 15, 70051, Barletta (BT), Italy
Valentina Testini Radiology Unit, “Dimiccoli” Hospital, Viale Ippocrate 15, 70051, Barletta (BT), Italy
Laura Eusebi Radiology Unit, “Carlo Urbani” Hospital, Via Aldo Moro 25, 60035, Jesi (AN), Italy
Riccardo Guglielmi Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Luzener Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland
Francesco Saverio Guerra Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Viale L. Pinto 1, 71121 Foggia (FG), Italy
Emanuele Tato' Health Management, “Dimiccoli” Hospital, Viale Ippocrate 15, 70051, Barletta (BT), Italy
Giuseppe Guglielmi Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Viale L. Pinto 1, 71121 Foggia, Italy

Keywords:

Prostate unit, prostate cancer, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI), MRI-Targeted Biopsy, multidisciplinary team

Abstract

This review article aims to describe the state of the art of organizational models that enable the creation of "Prostate Units" in various hospital settings, involving all specialists in the field.

The role of multidisciplinary teams is fundamental in the management and care of patients with prostate cancer, providing all patients with appropriate diagnoses and treatment options. The goal is to connect the various stakeholders in the patient journey into a single management network.

From diagnosis, in which multiparametric MRI plays a key role, to biopsy and any post-surgical care, the Prostate Unit aims to manage patients throughout the various stages of the disease.

References

1. Ferlay, J., Steliarova-Foucher, E., Lortet-Tieulent, J., et al (2013). Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 49(6), 1374–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027

2. Mowatt, G., Scotland, G., Boachie, C., et al. (2013). The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 17(20), vii–281. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17200

3. Vo, T., Rifkin, M. D., & Peters, T. L. (2001). Should ultrasound criteria of the prostate be redefined to better evaluate when and where to biopsy. Ultrasound quarterly, 17(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/00013644-200109000-00005

4. Ismail, M., & Gomella, L. G. (2001). Ultrasound for prostate imaging and biopsy. Current opinion in urology, 11(5), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042307-200109000-00004

5. Onur, R., Littrup, P. J., Pontes, J. E., et al (2004). Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. The Journal of urology, 172(2), 512–514. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000131621.61732.6b

6. Hegde, J. V., Mulkern, R. V., Panych, L. P., et al (2013). Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 37(5), 1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23860

7. Vargas, H. A., Hötker, A. M., Goldman, D. A., et a. (2016). Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. European radiology, 26(6), 1606–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6

8. Hamoen, E. H. J., de Rooij, M., Witjes, J. A., et al. (2015). Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. European urology, 67(6), 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033

9. Abd-Alazeez, M., Ahmed, H. U., Arya, M., et al. (2014). Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology?. Urologic oncology, 32(6), 741–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008

10. Röthke, M., Blondin, D., Schlemmer, et al. (2013). PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema für die MRT der Prostata [PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate]. RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin, 185(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1330270

11. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines, 2022 edition [website]. https://uroweb.org/guide lines (viewed Apr 2022).

12. Siddiqui, M. M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Truong, H., et al. (2013). Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. European urology, 64(5), 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059

13. Bjurlin, M. A., Meng, X., Le Nobin, J., et al (2014). Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. The Journal of urology, 192(3), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117

14. National Health and Medical Research Council. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in asymptomatic men: evidence evaluation report [website]. Canberra: NHMRC, 2013. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/ defau lt/files/ documents/repor ts/clini cal%20gui delin es/men4d-psatesting-asymp tomat ic.pdf (viewed Apr 2022).

15. US Preventive Services Task Force; Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018 May 8;319(18):1901-1913. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.3710. Erratum in: JAMA. 2018 Jun 19;319(23):2443.

16. Arnsrud Godtman, R., Holmberg, E., Lilja, H., et al. (2015). Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. European urology, 68(3), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.006

17. Engler, J., Dahlhaus, A., & Güthlin, C. (2017). The readiness of German GPs to recommend and conduct cancer screening is associated with patient-physician gender concordance. Results of a survey. The European journal of general practice, 23(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2016.1240166

18. Nordström, T., Aly, M., Clements, M. S., et al. (2013). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is prevalent and increasing in Stockholm County, Sweden, Despite no recommendations for PSA screening: results from a population-based study, 2003-2011. European urology, 63(3), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.001

19. Van Poppel, H., Roobol, M. J., Chapple, C. R., et al. (2021). Prostate-specific Antigen Testing as Part of a Risk-Adapted Early Detection Strategy for Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. European urology, 80(6), 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.024

20. Scattoni, V., Zlotta, A., Montironi, R., et al. (2007). Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. European urology, 52(5), 1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.006

21. Turkbey, B., Rosenkrantz, A. B., Haider, M. A.,et al. (2019). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. European urology, 76(3), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

22. Carpagnano, F.A., Eusebi, L., Tupputi, U. et al. (2020) Multiparametric MRI: Local Staging of Prostate Cancer. Curr Radiol Rep 8, 27

23. Linee Guida AIOM Carcinoma della Prostata 2024

24. Willemse, P. M., Davis, N. F., Grivas, N., et al. (2022). Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy. European urology, 81(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007

25. Mottet, N., Van Den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., Van Den Broeck, T., Cumberbatch, M. G., De Santis, M., Fanti, S., Fossati, N., Gandaglia, G., Gillessen, S., Grivas, N., Grummet, J., Henry, A. M., Van Der Kwast, T. H., Lam, T. B., Lardas, M., Liew, M., Mason, M. D., Moris, L., Oprea-Lager, D. E., … Cornford, P. (2021). Eau-Eanm-Estro-Esur-Siog Guidelines On Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, And Local Treatment With Curative Intent. European Urology, 79(2), 243–262. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Eururo.2020.09.042

26. Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. M. (2001). Americans' views on health policy: a fifty-year historical perspective. Health affairs (Project Hope), 20(2), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.2.33

27. Clancy, C. M., Glied, S. A., & Lurie, N. (2012). From research to health policy impact. Health services research, 47(1 Pt 2), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01374.x

28. Heidenreich, A., Bellmunt, J., Bolla, M., et al (2011). Eau Guidelines On Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, And Treatment Of Clinically Localised Disease. European Urology, 59(1), 61–71. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Eururo.2010.10.039

29. Position Statement Il Governo Clinico nelle Aziende Sanitarie, GIMBE