1
|
Katsimperis S, Pinitas A, Zerva M, Bellos T, Manolitsis I, Feretzakis G, Verykios VS, Kyriazis I, Neofytou P, Kapsalos S, Deligiannis P, Triantafyllou P, Juliebø-Jones P, Somani B, Mitsogiannis I, Tzelves L. The Contemporary Role of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy in the Management of Recurrent Prostate Cancer: An Up-to-Date Review. Life (Basel) 2024; 14:868. [PMID: 39063621 PMCID: PMC11277914 DOI: 10.3390/life14070868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2024] [Revised: 07/05/2024] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men, with many treatment modalities available for patients, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryotherapy, electroporation and other whole-gland or focal ablative novel techniques. Unfortunately, up to 60% of men with prostate cancer experience recurrence at 5 to 10 years. Salvage radical prostatectomy can be offered as an option in the setting of recurrence after a primary non-surgical treatment. However, the complexity of salvage radical prostatectomy is considered to be greater than that of primary surgery, making it the least popular treatment of choice. With the wide use of robotic platforms in urologic oncologic surgery, salvage radical prostatectomy has attracted attention again because, compared to past data, modern series involving salvage Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy have shown promising results. In this narrative literature review, we comprehensively examined data on salvage radical prostatectomy. We investigated the correlation between the different types of primary prostate cancer therapy and the following salvage radical prostatectomy. Furthermore, we explored the concept of a robotic approach and its beneficial effect in salvage surgery. Lastly, we emphasized several promising avenues for future research in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stamatios Katsimperis
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Alexandros Pinitas
- Department of Urology, General Hospital of Athens “G. Gennimatas”, 11527 Athens, Greece;
| | - Maria Zerva
- Department of Urology, Red Cross General Hospital of Athens, 11526 Athens, Greece;
| | - Themistoklis Bellos
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Ioannis Manolitsis
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Georgios Feretzakis
- School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece; (G.F.); (V.S.V.)
| | - Vassilios S. Verykios
- School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece; (G.F.); (V.S.V.)
| | - Ioannis Kyriazis
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Panagiotis Neofytou
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Sotirios Kapsalos
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Panagiotis Deligiannis
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Panagiotis Triantafyllou
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | | | - Bhaskar Somani
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK;
| | - Iraklis Mitsogiannis
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| | - Lazaros Tzelves
- Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15126 Athens, Greece; (T.B.); (I.M.); (I.K.); (P.N.); (S.K.); (P.D.); (P.T.); (I.M.); (L.T.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bazargani S, Feibus AH, Elshafei A, Al-Toubat M, Gopireddy DR, Gautam S, Barwari S, Henderson R, Lall C, Balaji KC, Bandyk M. Magnetic resonance imaging radiomic features for recurrent prostate cancer following proton radiation therapy-A pilot study. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:145.e1-145.e5. [PMID: 36496342 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.10.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2022] [Revised: 10/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The role of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) for postproton radiation evaluation is unclear. In this pilot study, we characterize the mp-MRI features using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) following proton radiation therapy. METHODS After obtaining IRB approval, we identified 163 consecutive cases who underwent MRI-fusion prostate biopsy at our institution from November 2017 to May 2020. This study evaluated patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with biochemical recurrence following proton radiation. Patients were excluded if they had grossly metastatic disease, metal fragments, implanted devices, or with surgically removed prostates. The mpMRI studies were reviewed in depth and scored by 2 fellowship-trained radiologists. Following MRI-fusion biopsy of lesions of interest (LOI), slides were read by fellowship-trained pathologists. RESULTS We found 14 patients with 16 lesions who met the study inclusion criteria. The median age was 69 years (range 57-79) and median time to biochemical recurrence was 7.3 years (range 3-13). On post-treatment imaging, decreases in prostate size and diffusely decreased T2 signal intensity were observed, making the use of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and early enhancement at dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging often necessary for diagnosis of disease recurrence. We identified a total of 16 lesions with PIRADS scores of 3 or higher. Of these lesions, there were 5 PIRADS 3 lesions (4/5 (80%) without prostate cancer), 7 PIRADS 4-5 lesions (6 (86%) had high risk Pca), and 4 lesions with unassigned PIRADS scores (100% had high risk cancers). Among the MRI variables, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) heterogeneity had the strongest association with recurrence of PCa (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Results of our pilot study showed that the PIRADS scoring system in the postproton radiation therapy setting has some correlations with prostate cancer recurrence; However, the clinical value of these findings are unclear. While definitive PIRADS categorization of lesions demonstrated expected frequency of cancer consistent with the scoring system, all unassigned lesions also harbored malignancy suggesting a cautious approach to PIRADS scoring system in postproton radiation setting. The findings from this study may be validated using a larger cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ahmed Elshafei
- University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL; Medical School, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
King MT, Yang DD, D’Amico AV, Buzurovic I, Harris TC, Guthier CV, Steele GS, Kathrins MN, Choudhury AD. Risk-adaptive paradigm for focal versus whole-gland salvage treatment for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:998390. [PMID: 36249064 PMCID: PMC9554650 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.998390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Accepted: 09/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Martin T. King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
- *Correspondence: Martin T. King,
| | - David D. Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Anthony V. D’Amico
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Ivan Buzurovic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Thomas C. Harris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Christian V. Guthier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Graeme S. Steele
- Department of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Martin N. Kathrins
- Department of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Atish D. Choudhury
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu W, Fakir H, Randhawa G, Alfano R, Corkum M, Kassam Z, Rachinsky I, Chung HT, Chung P, Loblaw A, Morton G, Sexton T, Kapoor A, Ward A, Zukotynski K, Emmett L, Bauman G. Defining radio-recurrent intra-prostatic target volumes using PSMA-targeted PET/CT and multi-parametric MRI. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 32:41-47. [PMID: 34841094 PMCID: PMC8606298 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2021] [Revised: 11/08/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to evaluate intra-prostatic cancer volumes for salvage radiotherapy in men with recurrent prostate cancer confined to the prostate post-primary radiotherapy using mpMRI and 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (PET). METHODS Men with biochemical failure post-primary radiotherapy were enrolled in a multi-centre trial investigating mpMRI and PET. All men with isolated intra-prostatic recurrence are included in this secondary analysis. The intra-prostatic gross tumour volume (GTV) was manually delineated on mpMRI and was also delineated on PET using three methods: 1. manually, 2. using a 30% threshold of maximum intra-prostatic standard uptake value (SUVmax), and 3. using a 67% threshold of this SUVmax. Clinical target volumes (CTV) including expansions on each GTV were generated. Conformity indices were performed between the mpMRI CTV and each PET CTV. Correlation with biopsy and clinical outcomes were performed. RESULTS Of the 36 men included, 30 (83%) had disease in two quadrants or less using the combination of mpMRI and PET. Mean target volume (union of CTV on mpMRI and CTV manually delineated on PET) was 12.2 cc (49% of prostate gland volume). 12/36 (33%) men had a biopsy. Per-patient sensitivity was 91% for mpMRI and 82% for PET. CONCLUSIONS mpMRI and PET provide complementary information for delineation of intra-prostatic recurrent disease. Union of CTV on mpMRI and PET is often less than 50% of the prostate, suggesting this imaging could help define a target for focal salvage therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Liu
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
| | - Hatim Fakir
- Department of Oncology and Department of Medical Biophysics, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
| | | | - Ryan Alfano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Windsor Regional Cancer Centre, Windsor Regional Hospital, Windsor, Canada
| | - Mark Corkum
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre and the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Zahra Kassam
- Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph’s Health Care and Western University, London, Canada
| | - Irina Rachinsky
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
| | - Hans T. Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Peter Chung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- Institute of Health Care Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Gerard Morton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Tracy Sexton
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
| | - Anil Kapoor
- Urologic Cancer Centre for Research & Innovation and McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Aaron Ward
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Lawson Health Research Institute and Western University, London, Canada
| | - Katherine Zukotynski
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
- Departments of Medicine and Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Louise Emmett
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, St. Vincent’s Hospital and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Glenn Bauman
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Comparison between MRI and choline-PET trans-perineal target biopsies and saturation biopsies for detection and topography of intra-prostatic recurrence after primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Prog Urol 2021; 31:683-691. [PMID: 34154955 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2021.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2020] [Revised: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy occurs in 5 to 50% of cases depending on the radiation technique used. The diagnosis of recurrence of prostate adenocarcinoma must be made accurately. The aim of this study was to compare transperineal saturation and target biopsies to index lesion (IL) as defined on MRI and 18FCholine PET-CT (PETc) for detection of intra-prostatic recurrence after primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-eight patients with an history of prostate radiation for prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence were retrospectively included between March 2013 and June 2017. All patients had PETc and multiparametric MRI (MRI) defining IL. All patients had transperineal saturation biopsies and target biopsies the IL. RESULTS Among 38 patients with biochemical recurrence, 33 (87%) had biopsy proven recurrence in the prostate. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 32% (SD:19%) and 91% respectively (SD:7%). The sensitivity and specificity of PETc were 33% (SD:22%) and 78% respectively (SD:12%). Saturation trans-perineal and target biopsies allowed detection of disease recurrence in 79% and 84% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION In case of positive imaging, both trans-perineal prostate saturation and target biopsies offer good performance to confirm intraprostatic recurrence. However, MRI and PETc low sensitivity to detect all sites of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation still justify the completion of systematic saturation biopsies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.
Collapse
|
6
|
Wang YF, Tadimalla S, Hayden AJ, Holloway L, Haworth A. Artificial intelligence and imaging biomarkers for prostate radiation therapy during and after treatment. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2021; 65:612-626. [PMID: 34060219 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2021] [Revised: 04/18/2021] [Accepted: 05/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Quantitative MRI (qMRI) parameters, derived from multi-parametric MRI, provide indirect measures of tumour characteristics such as cellularity, angiogenesis and hypoxia. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), relevant information and patterns can be efficiently identified in these complex data to develop quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) of tumour function and biology. Such QIBs have already demonstrated potential in the diagnosis and staging of PCa. In this review, we explore the role of these QIBs in monitoring treatment response during and after PCa radiotherapy (RT). Recurrence of PCa after RT is not uncommon, and early detection prior to development of metastases provides an opportunity for salvage treatments with curative intent. However, the current method of monitoring treatment response using prostate-specific antigen levels lacks specificity. QIBs, derived from qMRI and developed using AI techniques, can be used to monitor biological changes post-RT providing the potential for accurate and early diagnosis of recurrent disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Feng Wang
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sirisha Tadimalla
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Amy J Hayden
- Sydney West Radiation Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Wentworthville, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Health & Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lois Holloway
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
- Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Annette Haworth
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Blocker SJ, Cook J, Mowery YM, Everitt JI, Qi Y, Hornburg KJ, Cofer GP, Zapata F, Bassil AM, Badea CT, Kirsch DG, Johnson GA. Ex Vivo MR Histology and Cytometric Feature Mapping Connect Three-dimensional in Vivo MR Images to Two-dimensional Histopathologic Images of Murine Sarcomas. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2021; 3:e200103. [PMID: 34018846 DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2021200103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To establish a platform for quantitative tissue-based interpretation of cytoarchitecture features from tumor MRI measurements. Materials and Methods In a pilot preclinical study, multicontrast in vivo MRI of murine soft-tissue sarcomas in 10 mice, followed by ex vivo MRI of fixed tissues (termed MR histology), was performed. Paraffin-embedded limb cross-sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin, digitized, and registered with MRI. Registration was assessed by using binarized tumor maps and Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs). Quantitative cytometric feature maps from histologic slides were derived by using nuclear segmentation and compared with registered MRI, including apparent diffusion coefficients and transverse relaxation times as affected by magnetic field heterogeneity (T2* maps). Cytometric features were compared with each MR image individually by using simple linear regression analysis to identify the features of interest, and the goodness of fit was assessed on the basis of R2 values. Results Registration of MR images to histopathologic slide images resulted in mean DSCs of 0.912 for ex vivo MR histology and 0.881 for in vivo MRI. Triplicate repeats showed high registration repeatability (mean DSC, >0.9). Whole-slide nuclear segmentations were automated to detect nuclei on histopathologic slides (DSC = 0.8), and feature maps were generated for correlative analysis with MR images. Notable trends were observed between cell density and in vivo apparent diffusion coefficients (best line fit: R2 = 0.96, P < .001). Multiple cytoarchitectural features exhibited linear relationships with in vivo T2* maps, including nuclear circularity (best line fit: R2 = 0.99, P < .001) and variance in nuclear circularity (best line fit: R2 = 0.98, P < .001). Conclusion An infrastructure for registering and quantitatively comparing in vivo tumor MRI with traditional histologic analysis was successfully implemented in a preclinical pilot study of soft-tissue sarcomas. Keywords: MRI, Pathology, Animal Studies, Tissue Characterization Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie J Blocker
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - James Cook
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Yvonne M Mowery
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Jeffrey I Everitt
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Yi Qi
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Kathryn J Hornburg
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Gary P Cofer
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Fernando Zapata
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Alex M Bassil
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Cristian T Badea
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - David G Kirsch
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| | - G Allan Johnson
- From the Departments of Radiology (S.J.B., J.C., Y.Q., K.H., G.P.C., F.Z., C.T.B., G.A.J.), Radiation Oncology (Y.M.M., A.M.B., D.G.K.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Duke University Medical Center, Center for In Vivo Microscopy, Bryan Research Building, 311 Research Dr, Durham, NC 27710
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kowa JY, Soneji N, Sohaib SA, Mayer E, Hazell S, Butterfield N, Shur J, Ap Dafydd D. Detection and staging of radio-recurrent prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI. Br J Radiol 2021; 94:20201423. [PMID: 33586998 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We determined the sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer and extra prostatic extension in the post-radical radiotherapy setting. Histopathological reference standard was whole-mount prostatectomy specimens. We also assessed for any added value of the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence in detection and staging of local recurrence. METHODS This was a single centre retrospective study. Participants were selected from a database of males treated with salvage prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiotherapy. All underwent pre-operative prostate-specific antigen assay, positron emission tomography CT, MP-MRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy prior to salvage prostatectomy. MP-MRI performance was assessed using both Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 and a modified scoring system for the post-treatment setting. RESULTS 24 patients were enrolled. Using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value was 64%, 94%, 98% and 36%. MP-MRI under staged recurrent cancer in 63%. A modified scoring system in which DCE was used as a co-dominant sequence resulted in improved diagnostic sensitivity (61%-76%) following subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION Our results show MP-MRI has moderate sensitivity (64%) and high specificity (94%) in detecting radio-recurrent intraprostatic disease, though disease tends to be under quantified and under staged. Greater emphasis on dynamic contrast images in overall scoring can improve diagnostic sensitivity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE MP-MRI tends to under quantify and under stage radio-recurrent prostate cancer. DCE has a potentially augmented role in detecting recurrent tumour compared with the de novo setting. This has relevance in the event of any future modified MP-MRI scoring system for the irradiated gland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie-Ying Kowa
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - Neil Soneji
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - S Aslam Sohaib
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - Erik Mayer
- Department of Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK.,Department of Surgery & Cancer, St Mary's Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, Praed Street, London, UK
| | - Stephen Hazell
- Department of Histopathology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - Nicholas Butterfield
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - Joshua Shur
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - Derfel Ap Dafydd
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dinis Fernandes C, van Houdt PJ, Heijmink SWTPJ, Walraven I, Keesman R, Smolic M, Ghobadi G, van der Poel HG, Schoots IG, Pos FJ, van der Heide UA. Quantitative 3T multiparametric MRI of benign and malignant prostatic tissue in patients with and without local recurrent prostate cancer after external-beam radiation therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 50:269-278. [PMID: 30585368 PMCID: PMC6618021 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26581] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2018] [Revised: 10/31/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Post‐radiotherapy locally recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients are candidates for focal salvage treatment. Multiparametric MRI (mp‐MRI) is attractive for tumor localization. However, radiotherapy‐induced tissue changes complicate image interpretation. To develop focal salvage strategies, accurate tumor localization and distinction from benign tissue is necessary. Purpose To quantitatively characterize radio‐recurrent tumor and benign radiation‐induced changes using mp‐MRI, and investigate which sequences optimize the distinction between tumor and benign surroundings. Study Type Prospective case–control. Subjects Thirty‐three patients with biochemical failure after external‐beam radiotherapy (cases), 35 patients without post‐radiotherapy recurrent disease (controls), and 13 patients with primary PCa (untreated). Field Strength/Sequences 3T; quantitative mp‐MRI: T2‐mapping, ADC, and Ktrans and kep maps. Assessment Quantitative image‐analysis of prostatic regions, within and between cases, controls, and untreated patients. Statistical Tests Within‐groups: nonparametric Friedman analysis of variance with post‐hoc Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests; between‐groups: Mann–Whitney tests. All with Bonferroni corrections. Generalized linear mixed modeling to ascertain the contribution of each map and location to tumor likelihood. Results Benign imaging values were comparable between cases and controls (P = 0.15 for ADC in the central gland up to 0.91 for kep in the peripheral zone), both with similarly high peri‐urethral Ktrans and kep values (min−1) (median [range]: Ktrans = 0.22 [0.14–0.43] and 0.22 [0.14–0.36], P = 0.60, kep = 0.43 [0.24–0.57] and 0.48 [0.32–0.67], P = 0.05). After radiotherapy, benign central gland values were significantly decreased for all maps (P ≤ 0.001) as well as T2, Ktrans, and kep of benign peripheral zone (all with P ≤ 0.002). All imaging maps distinguished recurrent tumor from benign peripheral zone, but only ADC, Ktrans, and kep were able to distinguish it from benign central gland. Recurrent tumor and peri‐urethral Ktrans values were not significantly different (P = 0.81), but kep values were (P < 0.001). Combining all quantitative maps and voxel location resulted in an optimal distinction between tumor and benign voxels. Data Conclusion Mp‐MRI can distinguish recurrent tumor from benign tissue. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:269–278.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Petra J van Houdt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Iris Walraven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rick Keesman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Milena Smolic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ghazaleh Ghobadi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Uulke A van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|