1
|
Dias AB, Woo S, Leni R, Rajwa P, Kasivisvanathan V, Ghai S, Haider M, Gandaglia G, Brembilla G. Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance? Eur Radiol 2024:10.1007/s00330-024-10863-9. [PMID: 38965093 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10863-9] [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: 04/04/2024] [Revised: 05/15/2024] [Accepted: 05/25/2024] [Indexed: 07/06/2024]
Abstract
Active surveillance (AS) is a conservative management option recommended for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and selected cases with intermediate-risk PCa. The adoption of prostate MRI in the primary diagnostic setting has sparked interest in its application during AS. This review aims to examine the role and performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) across the entire AS pathway, from initial stratification to follow-up, also relative to the utilization of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria. Given the high negative predictive value of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa), robust evidence supports its use in patient selection and risk stratification at the time of diagnosis or confirmatory biopsy. However, conflicting results have been observed when using MRI in evaluating disease progression during follow-up. Key areas requiring clarification include addressing the clinical significance of MRI-negative csPCa, optimizing MRI quality, determining the role of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) or mpMRI protocols, and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for improved performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays an essential role in the selection, stratification, and follow up of patients in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. However, owing to existing limitations, it cannot fully replace biopsies in the context of AS. KEY POINTS: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become a crucial tool in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Conflicting results have been observed regarding multiparametric MRI efficacy in assessing disease progression. Standardizing MRI-guided protocols will be critical in addressing current limitations in active surveillance for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriano B Dias
- University Medical Imaging Toronto; Joint Department of Medical Imaging; University Health Network-Sinai Health System-Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sungmin Woo
- Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Riccardo Leni
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Sangeet Ghai
- University Medical Imaging Toronto; Joint Department of Medical Imaging; University Health Network-Sinai Health System-Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Masoom Haider
- University Medical Imaging Toronto; Joint Department of Medical Imaging; University Health Network-Sinai Health System-Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Brembilla
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Englman C, Maffei D, Allen C, Kirkham A, Albertsen P, Kasivisvanathan V, Baroni RH, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Dickinson L, Gómez Rivas J, Haider MA, Kesch C, Loeb S, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Mitra AM, Padhani AR, Panebianco V, Pinto PA, Ploussard G, Puech P, Purysko AS, Radtke JP, Rannikko A, Rastinehad A, Renard-Penna R, Sanguedolce F, Schimmöller L, Schoots IG, Shariat SF, Schieda N, Tempany CM, Turkbey B, Valerio M, Villers A, Walz J, Barrett T, Giganti F, Moore CM. PRECISE Version 2: Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2024:S0302-2838(24)02232-2. [PMID: 38556436 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.014] [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: 01/02/2024] [Revised: 02/21/2024] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 04/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. METHODS A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1-9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of 'X' for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS. PATIENT SUMMARY The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations are used in clinical practice and research to guide the interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. An international panel has updated these recommendations, clarified the areas of uncertainty, and highlighted the areas for further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cameron Englman
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Davide Maffei
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Peter Albertsen
- Department of Surgery (Urology), UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ronaldo Hueb Baroni
- Department of Radiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI; IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Pieter De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Louise Dickinson
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Juan Gómez Rivas
- Department of Urology, Clinico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Masoom A Haider
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Claudia Kesch
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA
| | - Katarzyna J Macura
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Margolis
- Weill Cornell Medical College, Department of Radiology, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anita M Mitra
- Department of Cancer Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Rickmansworth Road, Middlesex, UK
| | - Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Philippe Puech
- Department of Radiology, University of Lille, Lille, France
| | - Andrei S Purysko
- Abdominal Imaging Section, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jan Philipp Radtke
- University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - Antti Rannikko
- Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Art Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Raphaele Renard-Penna
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Francesco Sanguedolce
- Department of Urology, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, Universitá degli studi di Sassari - Italy
| | - Lars Schimmöller
- Dusseldorf University, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany; Department of Diagnostic, Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Nicola Schieda
- Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Department of Urology, Geneva University Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Arnauld Villers
- Department of Urology, Hospital Claude Huriez, CHU Lille, Lille, France
| | - Jochen Walz
- Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrook''s Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Valentin B, Arsov C, Ullrich T, Al-Monajjed R, Boschheidgen M, Hadaschik BA, Giganti F, Giessing M, Lopez-Cotarelo C, Esposito I, Antoch G, Albers P, Radtke JP, Schimmöller L. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study. EUR UROL SUPPL 2024; 59:30-38. [PMID: 38298772 PMCID: PMC10829616 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/16/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring. Objective To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%. Design setting and participants PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables. Results and limitations The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score (p = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score (p = 0.009), previous negative biopsy (p = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up. Conclusions MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC. Patient summary We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Birte Valentin
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Christian Arsov
- Department of Urology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Rheydt, Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, Staedtische Kliniken Moenchengladbach GmbH, Moenchengladbach, Germany
| | - Tim Ullrich
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | - Matthias Boschheidgen
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | - Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Markus Giessing
- Department of Urology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | | | - Irene Esposito
- Institute of Pathology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Gerald Antoch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Peter Albers
- Department of Urology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Division of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jan Philipp Radtke
- Department of Urology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lars Schimmöller
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Department of Diagnostic, Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Englman C, Barrett T, Moore CM, Giganti F. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria. Radiol Clin North Am 2024; 62:69-92. [PMID: 37973246 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2023.06.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cameron Englman
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Box 218, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; Department of Radiology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Box 218, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W7TY, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sanmugalingam N, Sushentsev N, Lee KL, Caglic I, Englman C, Moore CM, Giganti F, Barrett T. The PRECISE Recommendations for Prostate MRI in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023; 221:649-660. [PMID: 37341180 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.23.29518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/22/2023]
Abstract
The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations were published in 2016 to standardize the reporting of MRI examinations performed to assess for disease progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Although a limited number of studies have reported outcomes from use of PRECISE in clinical practice, the available studies have demonstrated PRECISE to have high pooled NPV but low pooled PPV for predicting progression. Our experience in using PRECISE in clinical practice at two teaching hospitals has highlighted issues with its application and areas requiring clarification. This Clinical Perspective critically appraises PRECISE on the basis of this experience, focusing on the system's key advantages and disadvantages and exploring potential changes to improve the system's utility. These changes include consideration of image quality when applying PRECISE scoring, incorporation of quantitative thresholds for disease progression, adoption of a PRECISE 3F sub-category for progression not qualifying as substantial, and comparisons with both the baseline and most recent prior examinations. Items requiring clarification include derivation of a patient-level score in patients with multiple lesions, intended application of PRECISE score 5 (i.e., if requiring development of disease that is no longer organ-confined), and categorization of new lesions in patients with prior MRI-invisible disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nimalan Sanmugalingam
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nikita Sushentsev
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kang-Lung Lee
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Iztok Caglic
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK
| | - Cameron Englman
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Aerts J, Hendrickx S, Berquin C, Lumen N, Verbeke S, Villeirs G, Van Praet C, De Visschere P. Clinical Application of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Score for Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. EUR UROL SUPPL 2023; 56:39-46. [PMID: 37822515 PMCID: PMC10562144 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) score has been developed to standardise prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting in men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective To evaluate the feasibility of PRECISE scoring and assess its diagnostic accuracy. Design setting and participants All PCa patients on AS with a baseline MRI and at least one follow-up MRI scan between January 2008 and September 2022 at a single tertiary referral centre were included in a database. The follow-up protocol of the Prostate Cancer International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study was used. All scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated uroradiologist and appointed a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (version 2.1) and PRECISE score. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Clinically significant progression was defined by histopathological upgrading (on biopsy or radical prostatectomy) to grade group ≥3 and/or evolution to T3 stage. A survival analysis was performed to assess differential progression-free survival (PFS) according to the PRECISE score. Results and limitations A total of 188 patients were included for an analysis with a total of 358 repeat MRI scans and 144 repeat biopsies. The median follow-up was 46 mo (interquartile range 21-74). Radiological progression (PRECISE 4-5) had sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of, respectively, 78%, 70%, 90%, and 49% for clinically significant progression. Four-year PFS was 91% for PRECISE 1-3 versus 66% for PRECISE 4-5 (p < 0.001). In total, 137 patients underwent a confirmation MRI scan within 18 mo after diagnosis. Four-year PFS in this group was 81% for PRECISE 1-3 versus 43% for PRECISE 4-5 (p < 0.001). Limitations include retrospective design and no strict adherence to AS protocol. Conclusions Implementation of PRECISE scoring for PCa patients on AS is feasible and offers a prognostic value. Patients with PRECISE score 4-5 on confirmation MRI within 18 mo after diagnosis have a three-fold higher risk of clinically significant progression after 4 yr. Patient summary Patients with low-risk prostate cancer can be followed up carefully. In this study, we evaluate the standardised reporting of repeat magnetic resonance imaging scans (using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] recommendations). PRECISE scoring is feasible and helps identify patients in need of further treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Aerts
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Sigi Hendrickx
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Camille Berquin
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Nicolaas Lumen
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Sofie Verbeke
- Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Geert Villeirs
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | - Pieter De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Harder FN, Heming CAM, Haider MA. mpMRI Interpretation in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-An overview of the PRECISE score. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2023; 48:2449-2455. [PMID: 37160473 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-03912-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Revised: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Active surveillance (AS) is now included in all major guidelines for patients with low-risk PCa and selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa. Several studies have highlighted the potential benefit of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS and it has been adopted in some guidelines. However, uncertainty remains about whether serial mpMRI can help to safely reduce the number of required repeat biopsies under AS. In 2017, the European School of Oncology initiated the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) panel which proposed the PRECISE scoring system to assess the likelihood of radiological tumor progression on serial mpMRI. The PRECISE scoring system remains the only major system evaluated in multiple publications. In this review article, we discuss the current body of literature investigating the application of PRECISE as it is not as yet an established standard in mpMRI reporting. We delineate the strengths of PRECISE and its potential added value. Also, we underline potential weaknesses of the PRECISE scoring system, which might be tackled in future versions to further increase its value in AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix N Harder
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada
| | - Carolina A M Heming
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada
- Radiology Department, Instituto Nacional do Cancer (INCa), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Masoom A Haider
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Luiting HB, Remmers S, Boevé ER, Valdagni R, Chiu PK, Semjonow A, Berge V, Tully KH, Rannikko AS, Staerman F, Roobol MJ. A Multivariable Approach Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Avoid a Protocol-based Prostate Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-Data from the International Multicenter Prospective PRIAS Study. Eur Urol Oncol 2022; 5:651-658. [PMID: 35437217 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Revised: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is ongoing discussion whether a multivariable approach including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can safely prevent unnecessary protocol-advised repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS). OBJECTIVE To determine predictors for grade group (GG) reclassification in patients undergoing an MRI-informed prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) during AS and to evaluate whether a confirmatory biopsy can be omitted in patients diagnosed with upfront MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study is a multicenter prospective study of patients on AS (www.prias-project.org). We selected all patients undergoing MRI-Bx (targeted ± systematic biopsy) during AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of GG progression/reclassification in patients undergoing MRI-Bx. A sensitivity analysis and a multivariable logistic regression analysis were also performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 1185 patients underwent 1488 MRI-Bx sessions. The time-dependent Cox regression analysis showed that age (per 10 yr, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71-0.99]), MRI outcome (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PIRADS] 3 vs negative HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.56-3.88], PIRADS 4 vs negative HR 3.39 [95% CI 2.28-5.05], and PIRADS 5 vs negative HR 4.95 [95% CI 3.25-7.56]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (per 0.1 ng/ml cm3, HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.12-1.30]), and percentage positive cores on the last systematic biopsy (per 10%, HR 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23]) were significant predictors of GG reclassification. Of the patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 (n = 315), 3% were reclassified to GG ≥2 and 0.6% to GG ≥3. At the confirmatory biopsy, reclassification to GG ≥2 and ≥3 was observed in 23% and 7% of the patients diagnosed without upfront MRI and in 19% and 6% of the patients diagnosed with upfront MRI, respectively. The multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in upgrading at the confirmatory biopsy between patients diagnosed with or without upfront MRI. CONCLUSIONS Age, MRI outcome, PSA density, and percentage positive cores are significant predictors of reclassification at an MRI-informed biopsy. Patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 can safely omit a protocol-based prostate biopsy, whereas in other patients, a multivariable approach is advised. Being diagnosed with upfront MRI appears not to significantly affect reclassification risk; hence, a confirmatory MRI-Bx cannot totally be omitted yet. PATIENT SUMMARY A protocol-based prostate biopsy while on active surveillance can be omitted in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific antigen density <0.15 ng/ml cm3. A confirmatory biopsy cannot simply be omitted in all patients diagnosed with upfront MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sebastiaan Remmers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Egbert R Boevé
- Department of Urology, Franciscus Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Prostate Cancer Program, Department of Radiation Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Peter K Chiu
- Department of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Axel Semjonow
- Department of Urology, Prostate Center, University Clinic Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Viktor Berge
- Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Karl H Tully
- Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
| | - Antti S Rannikko
- Department of Urology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Frédéric Staerman
- Department of Urology, Polyclinique Reims-Bezannes, Bezannes, France
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Fiard G, Giganti F. How MRI is changing prostate cancer management: a focus on early detection and active surveillance: Comment l'IRM est en train de révolutionner la prise en charge du cancer de la prostate : focus sur la détection précoce et la surveillance active. Prog Urol 2022; 32:6S19-6S25. [PMID: 36719642 DOI: 10.1016/s1166-7087(22)00171-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The last decade has witnessed major changes in prostate cancer management. Among these, the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), by allowing the visualisation of the cancerous lesion inside the prostatic gland, opened new management horizons. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a narrative review of the literature published since 2010, focusing on the place of MRI in the early detection, active surveillance and prostate cancer screening settings. RESULTS Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), interpreted using the PI-RADS scoring system, has allowed a shift from systematic to mpMRI-targeted biopsies, supported by level I evidence. Studies are ongoing to evaluate the role of MRI as a triage and screening tool. The integration of mpMRI has allowed for a better selection of active surveillance candidates, reducing the risk of misclassification. The PRECISE recommendations have been created to assess the likelihood of radiological change over time from the previous or baseline mpMRI scan, and serial mpMRI appears promising to reduce the need for repeat biopsy in active surveillance. CONCLUSION Growing evidence supports the use of MRI at all stages of the prostate cancer pathway, relying on images of optimal diagnostic quality and experience in prostate MRI reporting and biopsy targeting. © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Fiard
- Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France; Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, Grenoble, France.
| | - F Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Saout K, Zambon A, Nguyen T, Lucas C, Payrard-Starck C, Segalen T, Tissot V, Doucet L, Marolleau J, Deruelle C, Joulin V, Fourcade A, Fournier G, Valeri A. Impact of multiparametric MRI and PSA density on the initial indication or the maintaining in active surveillance during follow-up in low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2022; 20:e244-e252. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
11
|
Sushentsev N, Rundo L, Blyuss O, Nazarenko T, Suvorov A, Gnanapragasam VJ, Sala E, Barrett T. Comparative performance of MRI-derived PRECISE scores and delta-radiomics models for the prediction of prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:680-689. [PMID: 34255161 PMCID: PMC8660717 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08151-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2021] [Revised: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the performance of the PRECISE scoring system against several MRI-derived delta-radiomics models for predicting histopathological prostate cancer (PCa) progression in patients on active surveillance (AS). METHODS The study included AS patients with biopsy-proven PCa with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and at least one repeat targeted biopsy. Histopathological progression was defined as grade group progression from diagnostic biopsy. The control group included patients with both radiologically and histopathologically stable disease. PRECISE scores were applied prospectively by four uro-radiologists with 5-16 years' experience. T2WI- and ADC-derived delta-radiomics features were computed using baseline and latest available MRI scans, with the predictive modelling performed using the parenclitic networks (PN), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression, and random forests (RF) algorithms. Standard measures of discrimination and areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated, with AUCs compared using DeLong's test. RESULTS The study included 64 patients (27 progressors and 37 non-progressors) with a median follow-up of 46 months. PRECISE scores had the highest specificity (94.7%) and positive predictive value (90.9%), whilst RF had the highest sensitivity (92.6%) and negative predictive value (92.6%) for predicting disease progression. The AUC for PRECISE (84.4%) was non-significantly higher than AUCs of 81.5%, 78.0%, and 80.9% for PN, LASSO regression, and RF, respectively (p = 0.64, 0.43, and 0.57, respectively). No significant differences were observed between AUCs of the three delta-radiomics models (p-value range 0.34-0.77). CONCLUSIONS PRECISE and delta-radiomics models achieved comparably good performance for predicting PCa progression in AS patients. KEY POINTS • The observed high specificity and PPV of PRECISE are complemented by the high sensitivity and NPV of delta-radiomics, suggesting a possible synergy between the two image assessment approaches. • The comparable performance of delta-radiomics to PRECISE scores applied by expert readers highlights the prospective use of the former as an objective and standardisable quantitative tool for MRI-guided AS follow-up. • The marginally superior performance of parenclitic networks compared to conventional machine learning algorithms warrants its further use in radiomics research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikita Sushentsev
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 218, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
| | - Leonardo Rundo
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- School of Physics, Engineering & Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
| | - Tatiana Nazarenko
- Department of Mathematics and Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Aleksandr Suvorov
- World-Class Research Center "Digital Biodesign and Personalised Healthcare", Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Evis Sala
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ellis EE, Frye TP. Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ther Adv Urol 2022; 14:17562872221106883. [PMID: 35872881 PMCID: PMC9297445 DOI: 10.1177/17562872221106883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2021] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Our goal is to review current literature regarding the role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa) and identify trends in rate of reclassification of risk category, performance of fusion biopsy (FB) versus systematic biopsy (SB), and progression-free survival. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and identified 121 articles. A narrative summary was performed. Results: Thirty-two articles were chosen to be featured in this review. SB and FB are complementary in detecting higher-grade disease in follow-up. While FB was more likely than SB to detect clinically significant disease, FB missed 6.4–11% of clinically significant disease. Imaging factors that predicted upgrading include number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lesion density, and MRI suspicion level. Conclusion: Incorporating mpMRI FB in conjunction with SB should be part of contemporary AS protocols. mpMRI should additionally be used routinely for follow-up; however, mpMRI is not currently sensitive enough in detecting disease progression to replace biopsy in the surveillance protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas P Frye
- University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave Box 656, Rochester, NY 14620, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Luzzago S, Piccinelli ML, Mistretta FA, Bianchi R, Cozzi G, Di Trapani E, Cioffi A, Catellani M, Fontana M, Jannello LMI, Botticelli FMG, Marvaso G, Alessi S, Pricolo P, Ferro M, Matei DV, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Fusco N, Petralia G, de Cobelli O, Musi G. Repeat MRI during active surveillance: natural history of prostatic lesions and upgrading rates. BJU Int 2021; 129:524-533. [PMID: 34687137 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Revised: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess upgrading rates in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) after serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of 558 patients. Five different criteria for mpMRI progression were used: 1) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score increase; 2) a lesion size increase; 3) an extraprostatic extension score increase; 4) overall mpMRI progression; and 5) the number of criteria met for mpMRI progression (0 vs 1 vs 2-3). In addition, two definitions of PCa upgrading were evaluated: 1) International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) ≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 and 2) ISUP GG ≥ 3. Estimated annual percent changes methodology was used to show the temporal trends of mpMRI progression criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI progression criteria were also analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models tested PCa upgrading rates. RESULTS Lower rates over time for all mpMRI progression criteria were observed. The NPV of serial mpMRI scans ranged from 90.5% to 93.5% (ISUP GG≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 PCa upgrading) and from 98% to 99% (ISUP GG≥3 PCa upgrading), depending on the criteria used for mpMRI progression. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used to substratify those patients who would be able to skip a prostate biopsy. In multivariable logistic regression models assessing PCa upgrading rates, all five mpMRI progression criteria achieved independent predictor status. CONCLUSION During AS, approximately 27% of patients experience mpMRI progression at first repeat MRI. However, the rates of mpMRI progression decrease over time at subsequent mpMRI scans. Patients with stable mpMRI findings and with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/mL could safely skip surveillance biopsies. Conversely, patients who experience mpMRI progression should undergo a prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Luzzago
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Mattia Luca Piccinelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Roberto Bianchi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Cozzi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ettore Di Trapani
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Cioffi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Michele Catellani
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Matteo Fontana
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Giulia Marvaso
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.,Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Sarah Alessi
- Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Pricolo
- Division of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Matteo Ferro
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Deliu-Victor Matei
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.,Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fusco
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.,Department of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.,Precision Imaging and Research Unit, Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio de Cobelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Handke AE, Graefen M, Ullrich T, Wibmer A, Hadaschik BA, Giganti F, Schimmöller L, Radtke JP. [Can progression of prostate cancer be reliably diagnosed using serial magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance?]. Urologe A 2021; 60:1594-1597. [PMID: 34618168 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-021-01676-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Analena Elisa Handke
- Urologische Universitätsklinik, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik am UKE, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland
| | - Tim Ullrich
- Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland
| | - Andreas Wibmer
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, USA
| | - Boris Alexander Hadaschik
- Urologische Universitätsklinik, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, Großbritannien.,Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, Großbritannien
| | - Lars Schimmöller
- Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland
| | - Jan Philipp Radtke
- Urologische Universitätsklinik, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. .,Abteilung Radiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Sandhu S, Moore CM, Chiong E, Beltran H, Bristow RG, Williams SG. Prostate cancer. Lancet 2021; 398:1075-1090. [PMID: 34370973 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00950-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 233] [Impact Index Per Article: 77.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Revised: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The management of prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, with substantial advances being made in understanding the genomic landscape and biology underpinning both primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Similarly, the emergence of more sensitive imaging methods has improved diagnostic and staging accuracy and refined surveillance strategies. These advances have introduced personalised therapeutics to clinical practice, with treatments targeting genomic alterations in DNA repair pathways now clinically validated. An important shift in the therapeutic framework for metastatic disease has taken place, with metastatic-directed therapies being evaluated for oligometastatic disease, aggressive management of the primary lesion shown to benefit patients with low-volume metastatic disease, and with several novel androgen pathway inhibitors significantly improving survival when used as a first-line therapy for metastatic disease. Research into the molecular characterisation of localised, recurrent, and progressive disease will undoubtedly have an impact on clinical management. Similarly, emerging research into novel therapeutics, such as targeted radioisotopes and immunotherapy, holds much promise for improving the lives of patients with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shahneen Sandhu
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Edmund Chiong
- Department of Urology and Department of Surgery, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Robert G Bristow
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Scott G Williams
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
MRI-derived radiomics model for baseline prediction of prostate cancer progression on active surveillance. Sci Rep 2021; 11:12917. [PMID: 34155265 PMCID: PMC8217549 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92341-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2020] [Accepted: 06/03/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Nearly half of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) harbour low- or intermediate-risk disease considered suitable for active surveillance (AS). However, up to 44% of patients discontinue AS within the first five years, highlighting the unmet clinical need for robust baseline risk-stratification tools that enable timely and accurate prediction of tumour progression. In this proof-of-concept study, we sought to investigate the added value of MRI-derived radiomic features to standard-of-care clinical parameters for improving baseline prediction of PCa progression in AS patients. Tumour T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and apparent diffusion coefficient radiomic features were extracted, with rigorous calibration and pre-processing methods applied to select the most robust features for predictive modelling. Following leave-one-out cross-validation, the addition of T2WI-derived radiomic features to clinical variables alone improved the area under the ROC curve for predicting progression from 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.481-0.743) to 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.86). These exploratory findings demonstrate the potential benefit of MRI-derived radiomics to add incremental benefit to clinical data only models in the baseline prediction of PCa progression on AS, paving the way for future multicentre studies validating the proposed model and evaluating its impact on clinical outcomes.
Collapse
|
17
|
Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, Mori K, Laukhtina E, Huebner NA, D'Andrea D, Krzywon A, Shim SR, Baltzer PA, Renard-Penna R, Leapman MS, Shariat SF, Ploussard G. Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2021; 80:549-563. [PMID: 34020828 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive. OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes. CONCLUSIONS Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI. PATIENT SUMMARY Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Keiichiro Mori
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ekaterina Laukhtina
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Nicolai A Huebner
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - David D'Andrea
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Aleksandra Krzywon
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Sung Ryul Shim
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Pascal A Baltzer
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Raphaële Renard-Penna
- Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris-Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | | | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
O'Connor LP, Wang AZ, Yerram NK, Long L, Ahdoot M, Lebastchi AH, Gurram S, Zeng J, Harmon SA, Mehralivand S, Merino MJ, Parnes HL, Choyke PL, Shih JH, Wood BJ, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:227-234. [PMID: 33867045 PMCID: PMC9310665 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Revised: 09/07/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question. OBJECTIVE To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI. CONCLUSIONS In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease. PATIENT SUMMARY For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke P O'Connor
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alex Z Wang
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nitin K Yerram
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lori Long
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Michael Ahdoot
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amir H Lebastchi
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sandeep Gurram
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Johnathan Zeng
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Stephanie A Harmon
- Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sherif Mehralivand
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Maria J Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Howard L Parnes
- Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institutes, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter L Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Joanna H Shih
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Bradford J Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Borkowetz A. [Localised prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy or deferred treatment strategy]. Urologe A 2021; 60:504-508. [PMID: 33666668 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-021-01482-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Angelika Borkowetz
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. .,UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Berlin, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
The Importance of Being PRECISE in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Active Surveillance. Eur Urol 2021; 79:560-563. [PMID: 33546915 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2020] [Accepted: 01/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
|
21
|
Wu RC, Lebastchi AH, Hadaschik BA, Emberton M, Moore C, Laguna P, Fütterer JJ, George AK. Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2021; 39:637-649. [PMID: 33394091 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03530-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2020] [Accepted: 11/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
The use of multiparametric MRI has been hastened under expanding, novel indications for its use in the diagnostic and management pathway of men with prostate cancer. This has helped drive a large body of the literature describing its evolving role over the last decade. Despite this, prostate cancer remains the only solid organ malignancy routinely diagnosed with random sampling. Herein, we summarize the components of multiparametric MRI and interpretation, and present a critical review of the current literature supporting is use in prostate cancer detection, risk stratification, and management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard C Wu
- Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
- College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
| | - Amir H Lebastchi
- Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Boris A Hadaschik
- University Hospital Heidelberg and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Caroline Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Pilar Laguna
- Department of Urology, Medipol University Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Jurgen J Fütterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Arvin K George
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Grummet J, Henry AM, van der Kwast TH, Lam TB, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason MD, Moris L, Oprea-Lager DE, van der Poel HG, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, Wiegel T, Willemse PPM, Cornford P. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2020; 79:243-262. [PMID: 33172724 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1428] [Impact Index Per Article: 357.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France.
| | | | | | | | | | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nikos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeremy Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Caulfield North, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Thomas B Lam
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Michael Lardas
- Department of Urology, Metropolitan General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Giganti F, Stabile A, Stavrinides V, Osinibi E, Retter A, Orczyk C, Panebianco V, Trock BJ, Freeman A, Haider A, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, Emberton M, Moore CM. Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort. Eur Radiol 2020; 31:1644-1655. [PMID: 33000302 PMCID: PMC7880925 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07256-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2020] [Revised: 07/28/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Objectives The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. Methods A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. Results Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Conclusions Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. Key Points • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07256-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. .,Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.,Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Vasilis Stavrinides
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth Osinibi
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK
| | - Adam Retter
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK
| | - Clément Orczyk
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Bruce J Trock
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Aiman Haider
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Thompson J, Amin A, Stricker P. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improves Selection for Active Surveillance and Can Extend the Interval Between Biopsies. Eur Urol 2020; 78:518-519. [PMID: 32718798 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 07/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- James Thompson
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia; School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Amer Amin
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia; School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia
| | - Phillip Stricker
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia; School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Osses DF, Drost FJH, Verbeek JFM, Luiting HB, van Leenders GJLH, Bangma CH, Krestin GP, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG. Prostate cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active surveillance: are confirmatory biopsies still necessary? BJU Int 2020; 126:124-132. [PMID: 32232921 PMCID: PMC7383866 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Objectives To investigate whether serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide the utility of repeat targeted (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) when monitoring men with low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) at 1‐year of active surveillance (AS). Patients and Methods We retrospectively included 111 consecutive men with low‐risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade 1) PCa, who received protocolled repeat MRI with or without TBx and repeat SBx at 1‐year of AS. TBx was performed in Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score ≥3 lesions (MRI‐positive men). Upgrading defined as ISUP Grade ≥2 PCa (I), Grade ≥2 with cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma PCa (II), and Grade ≥3 PCa (III) was investigated. Upgrading detected by TBx only (not by SBx) and SBx only (not by TBx) was investigated in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men, and related to radiological progression on MRI (Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] score). Results Overall upgrading (I) was 32% (35/111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 48% (30/63) and 10% (5/48) (P < 0.001), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in 23% (seven of 30) by TBx only and in 33% (10/30) by SBx only. Radiological progression (PRECISE score 4–5) in MRI‐positive men was seen in 27% (17/63). Upgrading (I) occurred in 41% (seven of 17) of these MRI‐positive men, while this was 50% (23/46) in MRI‐positive men without radiological progression (PRECISE score 1–3) (P = 0.534). Overall upgrading (II) was 15% (17/111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 22% (14/63) and 6% (three of 48) (P = 0.021), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in three of 14 by TBx only and in seven of 14 by SBx only. Overall upgrading (III) occurred in 5% (five of 111). Upgrading in MRI‐positive and ‐negative men was 6% (four of 63) and 2% (one of 48) (P = 0.283), respectively. In MRI‐positive men, there was upgrading in one of four by TBx only and in two of four by SBx only. Conclusion Upgrading is significantly lower in MRI‐negative compared to MRI‐positive men with low‐risk PCa at 1‐year of AS. In serial MRI‐negative men, the added value of repeat SBx at 1‐year surveillance is limited and should be balanced individually against the harms. In serial MRI‐positive men, the added value of repeat SBx is substantial. Based on this cohort, SBx is recommended to be performed in combination with TBx in all MRI‐positive men at 1‐year of AS, also when there is no radiological progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniël F Osses
- Departments of, Department of, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank-Jan H Drost
- Departments of, Department of, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan F M Verbeek
- Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk B Luiting
- Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Chris H Bangma
- Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gabriel P Krestin
- Departments of, Department of, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of, Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Departments of, Department of, Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Giganti F, Pecoraro M, Stavrinides V, Stabile A, Cipollari S, Sciarra A, Kirkham A, Allen C, Punwani S, Emberton M, Catalano C, Moore CM, Panebianco V. Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:2082-2090. [PMID: 31844959 PMCID: PMC7062656 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06557-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2019] [Revised: 10/08/2019] [Accepted: 10/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We aimed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria for magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) at two different academic centres. METHODS The PRECISE criteria score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. The system is a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 or 2 implies regression of a previously visible lesion, 3 denotes stability and 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients (40 from each centre) on AS with a biopsy-confirmed low- or intermediate-risk PCa (i.e. ≤ Gleason 3 + 4 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 20 ng/ml) and ≥ 2 prostate MR scans was performed. Two blinded radiologists reported all scans independently and scored the likelihood of radiological change (PRECISE score) from the second scan onwards. Cohen's κ coefficients and percent agreement were computed. RESULTS Agreement was substantial both at a per-patient and a per-scan level (κ = 0.71 and 0.61; percent agreement = 79% and 81%, respectively) for each PRECISE score. The agreement was superior (κ = 0.83 and 0.67; percent agreement = 90% and 91%, respectively) when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at University College London (UCL) (κ = 0.81 vs 0.55 on a per-patient level and κ = 0.70 vs 0.48 on a per-scan level, respectively). The discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement (80% vs 78% and 86% vs 75%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Expert radiologists achieved substantial reproducibility for the PRECISE scoring system, especially when data were pooled together according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). KEY POINTS • Inter-reader agreement between two experienced prostate radiologists using the PRECISE criteria was substantial. • The agreement was higher when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (i.e. PRECISE 1-3 vs PRECISE 4 and 5). • Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at UCL, but the discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
| | - Martina Pecoraro
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Vasilis Stavrinides
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St, London, W1W 7TS, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St, London, W1W 7TS, UK
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Cipollari
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Allen
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St, London, W1W 7TS, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Carlo Catalano
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St, London, W1W 7TS, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Kasivisvanathan V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Should Be Used in the Active Surveillance of Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2020; 77:318-319. [PMID: 31780103 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2019] [Accepted: 11/15/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) Research Collaborative, London, UK.
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) Research Collaborative, London, UK; NIHR UCLH/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|