1
|
Light A, Lazic S, Houghton K, Bayne M, Connor MJ, Tam H, Ahmed HU, Shah TT, Barwick TD. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Versus Multiparametric MRI for Detection of Intraprostatic Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2024; 65:379-385. [PMID: 38212074 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266527] [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: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
For men with prostate cancer who develop biochemical failure after radiotherapy, European guidelines recommend reimaging with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). However, the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for detecting intraprostatic recurrences is unclear, both with and without mpMRI. Methods: A single-center retrospective study of a series of patients investigated for radiorecurrence between 2016 and 2022 is described. All patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy. PET/CT images were interpreted independently by 2 expert readers masked to other imaging and clinical data. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT versus mpMRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alone. The secondary outcome was the proportion of cancers missed by mpMRI but detected by PET/CT. Diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed at the prostate hemigland level using cluster bootstrapping. Results: Thirty-five men (70 hemiglands) were included. Cancer was confirmed by biopsy in 43 of 70 hemiglands (61%). PET/CT sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62-0.95), respectively, which were not significantly different from results by MRI (sensitivity of 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = 0.1) (NPV of 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = 0.07). Specificity and positive predictive values were not significantly different. When PET/CT and MRI were used together, the sensitivity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and NPV was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.75-1.00), both significantly higher than MRI alone (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Specificity and positive predictive values remained not significantly different. MRI missed 12 of 43 cancers (28%; 95% CI, 17%-43%), of which 11 of 12 (92%; 95% CI, 62%-100%) were detected by PET/CT. Conclusion: For detecting intraprostatic radiorecurrence, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT has high sensitivity that is not significantly different from mpMRI. When 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI were used together, the results conferred a significantly greater sensitivity and NPV than with mpMRI alone. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may therefore be a useful tool in the diagnosis of localized radiorecurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stefan Lazic
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Kate Houghton
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Max Bayne
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Martin J Connor
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Tara D Barwick
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gumus KZ, Contreras SS, Al-Toubat M, Harmon I, Hernandez M, Ozdemir S, Kumar S, Yuruk N, Mete M, Balaji KC, Bandyk M, Gopireddy DR. MRI-based radiomic features for identifying recurrent prostate cancer after proton radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14293. [PMID: 38409947 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 02/28/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) evaluation of recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) following proton beam therapy is challenging due to radiation-induced tissue changes. This study aimed to evaluate MRI-based radiomic features so as to identify the recurrent PCa after proton therapy. METHODS We retrospectively studied 12 patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following proton therapy. Two experienced radiologists identified prostate lesions from multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) images post-proton therapy and marked control regions of interest (ROIs) on the contralateral side of the prostate gland. A total of 210 radiomic features were extracted from lesions and control regions on the T2-weighted (T2WI) and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) image series. Recursive Feature Elimination with Cross-Validation method (RFE-CV) was used for feature selection. A Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neural network was developed to classify three classes: cancerous, benign, and healthy tissue. The 12-core biopsy results were used as the gold standard for the segmentations. The classifier performance was measured using specificity, sensitivity, the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and other statistical indicators. RESULTS Based on biopsy results, 10 lesions were identified as PCa recurrence while eight lesions were confirmed to be benign. Ten radiomic features (10/210) were selected to build the multi-class classifier. The radiomics classifier gave an accuracy of 0.83 in identifying cancerous, benign, and healthy tissue with a sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.85. The model yielded an AUC of 0.87, 95% CI [0.72-1.00] in differentiating cancer from the benign and healthy tissues. CONCLUSIONS Our proof-of-concept study demonstrates the potential of using radiomic features as part of the differential diagnosis of PCa on mpMRI following proton therapy. The results need to be validated in a larger cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazim Z Gumus
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Samuel Serrano Contreras
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Mohammed Al-Toubat
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Ira Harmon
- Center for Data Solutions, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Mauricio Hernandez
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Savas Ozdemir
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Sindhu Kumar
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Nurcan Yuruk
- Department of Computer Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Mutlu Mete
- Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, Texas, USA
| | - K C Balaji
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Mark Bandyk
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Dheeraj R Gopireddy
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ghezzo S, Mapelli P, Samanes Gajate AM, Palmisano A, Cucchiara V, Brembilla G, Bezzi C, Suardi N, Scifo P, Briganti A, De Cobelli F, Chiti A, Esposito A, Picchio M. Diagnostic accuracy of fully hybrid [ 68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI and [ 68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET/MRI in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-center phase II clinical trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2024; 51:907-918. [PMID: 37897615 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06483-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2023] [Accepted: 10/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of PET/MRI with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [68Ga]Ga-M2 in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective single-center phase II clinical trial from June 2020 to October 2022. Forty-four/60 completed all study examinations and were available at follow-up (median: 22.8 months, range: 6-31.5 months). Two nuclear medicine physicians analyzed PET images and two radiologists interpreted MRI; images were then re-examined to produce an integrated PET/MRI report for both [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [68Ga]Ga-RM2 examinations. A composite reference standard including histological specimens, response to treatment, and conventional imaging gathered during follow-up was used to validate imaging findings. Detection rates, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value were assessed. McNemar's test was used to compare sensitivity and specificity on a per-patient base and detection rate on a per-region base. Prostate bed, locoregional lymph nodes, non-skeletal distant metastases, and bone metastases were considered. p-value significance was defined below the 0.05 level after correction for multiple testing. RESULTS Patients' median age was 69.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 61.8-75.1) and median PSA level at time of imaging was 0.53 ng/mL (IQR: 0.33-2.04). During follow-up, evidence of recurrence was observed in 31/44 patients. Combining MRI with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET resulted in sensitivity = 100% and 93.5% and specificity of 69.2% and 69.2%, respectively. When considering the individual imaging modalities, [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET showed lower sensitivity compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and MRI (61.3% vs 83.9% and 87.1%, p = 0.046 and 0.043, respectively), while specificity was comparable among the imaging modalities (100% vs 84.6% and 69.2%, p = 0.479 and 0.134, respectively). CONCLUSION This study brings further evidence on the utility of fully hybrid PET/MRI for disease characterization in patients with biochemically recurrent PCa. Imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET showed high sensitivity, while the utility of [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET in absence of a simultaneous whole-body/multiparametric MRI remains to be determined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuele Ghezzo
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Mapelli
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Ana Maria Samanes Gajate
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Palmisano
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Vito Cucchiara
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Brembilla
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Carolina Bezzi
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Nazareno Suardi
- IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy
| | - Paola Scifo
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco De Cobelli
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Esposito
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Picchio
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy.
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Light A, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial. Eur Urol 2024; 85:35-46. [PMID: 37778954 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, 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
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, 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
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sudha Surasi DS, Kalva P, Hwang KP, Bathala TK. Pitfalls in Prostate MR Imaging Interpretation. Radiol Clin North Am 2024; 62:53-67. [PMID: 37973245 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2023.07.001] [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 MR imaging of the prostate is an essential diagnostic study in the evaluation of prostate cancer. Several entities including normal anatomic structures, benign lesions, and posttreatment changes can mimic prostate cancer. An in depth understanding of the pitfalls is important for accurate interpretation of prostate MR imaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devaki Shilpa Sudha Surasi
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1483, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| | - Praneeth Kalva
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390, USA
| | - Ken-Pin Hwang
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1472, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Tharakeswara Kumar Bathala
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler, Unit 1483, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Awiwi MO, Gjoni M, Vikram R, Altinmakas E, Dogan H, Bathala TK, Naik S, Ravizzini G, Kandemirli SG, Elsayes KM, Salem UI. MRI and PSMA PET/CT of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer. Radiographics 2023; 43:e230112. [PMID: 37999983 DOI: 10.1148/rg.230112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
Prostate cancer may recur several years after definitive treatment, such as prostatectomy or radiation therapy. A rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is the first sign of disease recurrence, and this is termed biochemical recurrence. Patients with biochemical recurrence have worse survival outcomes. Radiologic localization of recurrent disease helps in directing patient management, which may vary from active surveillance to salvage radiation therapy, androgen-deprivation therapy, or other forms of systemic and local therapy. The likelihood of detecting the site of recurrence increases with higher serum PSA level. MRI provides optimal diagnostic performance for evaluation of the prostatectomy bed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET radiotracers currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration demonstrate physiologic urinary excretion, which can obscure recurrence at the vesicourethral junction. However, MRI and PSMA PET/CT have comparable diagnostic performance for evaluation of local recurrence after external-beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy. PSMA PET/CT outperforms MRI in identifying recurrence involving the lymph nodes and bones. Caveats for use of both PSMA PET/CT and MRI do exist and may cause false-positive or false-negative results. Hence, these techniques have complementary roles and should be interpreted in conjunction with each other, taking the patient history and results of any additional prior imaging studies into account. Novel PSMA agents at various stages of investigation are being developed, and preliminary data show promising results; these agents may revolutionize the landscape of prostate cancer recurrence imaging in the future. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Turkbey in this issue. The slide presentation from the RSNA Annual Meeting is available for this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad O Awiwi
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Migena Gjoni
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Raghunandan Vikram
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Emre Altinmakas
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Hakan Dogan
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Tharakeswara K Bathala
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Sagar Naik
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Gregory Ravizzini
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Sedat Giray Kandemirli
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Khaled M Elsayes
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| | - Usama I Salem
- From the Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 2.132, Houston, TX 77030 (M.O.A.); Department of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey (M.G.); Departments of Abdominal Imaging (R.V., T.K.B., S.N., K.M.E., U.I.S.) and Nuclear Medicine (G.R.), Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (E.A.); Department of Radiology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey (E.A., H.D.); and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa (S.G.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yilmaz EC, Harmon SA, Belue MJ, Merriman KM, Phelps TE, Lin Y, Garcia C, Hazen L, Patel KR, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA, Citrin DE, Turkbey B. Evaluation of a Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Post-Radiotherapy Prostate Cancer Local Recurrence Detection Using Biparametric MRI. Eur J Radiol 2023; 168:111095. [PMID: 37717420 PMCID: PMC10615746 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2023] [Revised: 09/04/2023] [Accepted: 09/12/2023] [Indexed: 09/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate a biparametric MRI (bpMRI)-based artificial intelligence (AI) model for the detection of local prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence in patients with radiotherapy history. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study included post-radiotherapy patients undergoing multiparametric MRI and subsequent MRI/US fusion-guided and/or systematic biopsy. Histopathology results were used as ground truth. The recurrent cancer detection sensitivity of a bpMRI-based AI model, which was developed on a large dataset to primarily identify lesions in treatment-naïve patients, was compared to a prospective radiologist assessment using the Wald test. Subanalysis was conducted on patients stratified by the treatment modality (external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and brachytherapy) and the prostate volume quartiles. RESULTS Of the 62 patients included (median age = 70 years; median PSA = 3.51 ng/ml; median prostate volume = 27.55 ml), 56 recurrent PCa foci were identified within 46 patients. The AI model detected 40 lesions in 35 patients. The AI model performance was lower than the prospective radiology interpretation (Rad) on a patient-(AI: 76.1% vs. Rad: 91.3%, p = 0.02) and lesion-level (AI: 71.4% vs. Rad: 87.5%, p = 0.01). The mean number of false positives per patient was 0.35 (range: 0-2). The AI model performance was higher in EBRT group both on patient-level (EBRT: 81.5% [22/27] vs. brachytherapy: 68.4% [13/19]) and lesion-level (EBRT: 79.4% [27/34] vs. brachytherapy: 59.1% [13/22]). In patients with gland volumes >34 ml (n = 25), detection sensitivities were 100% (11/11) and 94.1% (16/17) on patient- and lesion-level, respectively. CONCLUSION The reported bpMRI-based AI model detected the majority of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Further testing including external validation of this model is warranted prior to clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enis C Yilmaz
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Stephanie A Harmon
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Mason J Belue
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Katie M Merriman
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Tim E Phelps
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Yue Lin
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Charisse Garcia
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States; Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Lindsey Hazen
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States; Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Maria J Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Bradford J Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States; Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Peter L Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States; Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr., MSC 1182, Building 10, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Masi M, Landoni V, Faiella A, Farneti A, Marzi S, Guerrisi M, Sanguineti G. Comparison of rigid and deformable coregistration between mpMRI and CT images in radiotherapy of prostate bed cancer recurrence. Phys Med 2021; 92:32-39. [PMID: 34847400 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.11.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy of rigid coregistration between multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMR) and computed tomography (CT) images for radiotherapy of prostate bed cancer recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHOD Fifty-three patients (59 nodules) accrued in a prospective study on salvage radiotherapy for prostatic bed recurrence were suitable for the analysis. Patients underwent a pre radiotherapy mpMR exam and a planning CT in the same treatment position and with control of organ filling. The site of recurrence was delineated on mpMR images and contours transferred on planning CT images using both rigid and deformable registrations. Coregistrations were evaluated by mathematical operators that quantify deformation (Jacobian determinant and vector curl) and similarity indices (Dice and Jaccard coefficients). Dose coverage was evaluated. RESULTS Deformable registration did not change volumes, (p = 0.92 MW test). The Jacobian coefficient and the vector curl revealed no important image deformations. Dice and Jaccard coefficients indicated dislocation of the nodule volumes. Dislocation magnitude was d = (5.6 ± 3.1) mm. Organ filling was not correlated with deformation or dislocation. Volumes were covered by the 95% isodose in 96% of cases when rigid registration was performed versus 75% of cases when deformed. CONCLUSIONS Rigid image coregistration is sufficiently accurate in this setting. The results indicate that the deformable registration tends to shrink the voxels and to dislocate the ROI, the adopted expansion for the recurrence volume adequately accounts for the observed deformation and dislocation, provided that organ filling is controlled.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marica Masi
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Valeria Landoni
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
| | - Adriana Faiella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessia Farneti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Simona Marzi
- Department of Medical Physics, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Maria Guerrisi
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rezaeijo SM, Hashemi B, Mofid B, Bakhshandeh M, Mahdavi A, Hashemi MS. The feasibility of a dose painting procedure to treat prostate cancer based on mpMR images and hierarchical clustering. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:182. [PMID: 34544468 PMCID: PMC8454023 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01906-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [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: 06/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the feasibility of a dose painting (DP) procedure, known as simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation Therapy (SIB-IMRT), for treating prostate cancer with dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mpMR) images and hierarchical clustering with a machine learning technique. METHODS The mpMR images of 120 patients were used to create hierarchical clustering and draw a dendrogram. Three clusters were selected for performing agglomerative clustering. Then, the DIL acquired from the mpMR images of 20 patients were categorized into three groups to have them treated with a DP procedure being composed of three planning target volumes (PTVs) determined as PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3 in treatment plans. The DP procedure was carried out on the patients wherein a total dose of 80, 85 and 91 Gy were delivered to the PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3, respectively. Dosimetric and radiobiologic parameters [Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP)] of the DP procedure were compared with those of the conventional IMRT and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) procedures carried out on another group of 20 patients. A post-treatment follow-up was also made four months after the radiotherapy procedures. RESULTS All the dosimetric variables and the NTCPs of the organs at risks (OARs) revealed no significant difference between the DP and IMRT procedures. Regarding the TCP of three investigated PTVs, significant differences were observed between the DP versus IMRT and also DP versus 3DCRT procedures. At post-treatment follow-up, the DIL volumes and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in the DP group differed significantly (p-value < 0.001) from those of the IMRT. However, the whole prostate ADC and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) indicated no significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between the DP versus IMRT. CONCLUSIONS The results of this comprehensive clinical trial illustrated the feasibility of our DP procedure for treating prostate cancer based on mpMR images validated with acquired patients' dosimetric and radiobiologic assessment and their follow-ups. This study confirms significant potential of the proposed DP procedure as a promising treatment planning to achieve effective dose escalation and treatment for prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION IRCT20181006041257N1; Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, Registered: 23 October 2019, https://en.irct.ir/trial/34305 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seyed Masoud Rezaeijo
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Al-Ahmad and Chamran Cross, 1411713116 Tehran, Iran
| | - Bijan Hashemi
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Al-Ahmad and Chamran Cross, 1411713116 Tehran, Iran
| | - Bahram Mofid
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mohsen Bakhshandeh
- Department of Radiology Technology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Arash Mahdavi
- Department of Radiology, Modares Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Exosomes as A Next-Generation Diagnostic and Therapeutic Tool in Prostate Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22:ijms221810131. [PMID: 34576294 PMCID: PMC8465219 DOI: 10.3390/ijms221810131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2021] [Revised: 09/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have brought great momentum to the non-invasive liquid biopsy procedure for the detection, characterization, and monitoring of cancer. Despite the common use of PSA (prostate-specific antigen) as a biomarker for prostate cancer, there is an unmet need for a more specific diagnostic tool to detect tumor progression and recurrence. Exosomes, which are EVs that are released from all cells, play a large role in physiology and pathology, including cancer. They are involved in intercellular communication, immune function, and they are present in every bodily fluid studied—making them an excellent window into how cells are operating. With liquid biopsy, EVs can be isolated and analyzed, enabling an insight into a potential therapeutic value, serving as a vehicle for drugs or nucleic acids that have anti-neoplastic effects. The current application of advanced technology also points to higher-sensitivity detection methods that are minimally invasive. In this review, we discuss the current understanding of the significance of exosomes in prostate cancer and the potential diagnostic value of these EVs in disease progression.
Collapse
|
11
|
Mouli SK, Raiter S, Harris K, Mylarapu A, Burks M, Li W, Gordon AC, Khan A, Matsumoto M, Bailey KL, Pasciak AS, Manupipatpong S, Weiss CR, Casalino D, Miller FH, Gates VL, Hohlastos E, Lewandowski RJ, Kim DH, Dreher MR, Salem R. Yttrium-90 Radioembolization to the Prostate Gland: Proof of Concept in a Canine Model and Clinical Translation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2021; 32:1103-1112.e12. [PMID: 33839262 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2021.01.282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 01/28/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the feasibility, safety, and absorbed-dose distribution of prostatic artery radioembolization (RE) in a canine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fourteen male castrated beagles received dihydroandrosterone/estradiol to induce prostatic hyperplasia for the duration of the study. Each dog underwent fluoroscopic prostatic artery catheterization. Yttrium-90 (90Y) microspheres (TheraSphere; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) were delivered to 1 prostatic hemigland (dose escalation from 60 to 200 Gy), with the contralateral side serving as a control. Assessments for adverse events were performed throughout the follow-up (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0). Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging provided a confirmation after the delivery of absorbed-dose distribution. MR imaging was performed before and 3, 20, and 40 days after RE. Tissue harvest of the prostate, rectum, bladder, urethra, penis, and neurovascular bundles was performed 60 days after RE. RESULTS All the animals successfully underwent RE. Positron emission tomography/MR imaging demonstrated localization to and good coverage of only the treated hemigland. No adverse events occurred. The MR imaging showed a significant dose-dependent decrease in the treated hemigland size at 40 days (25%-60%, P < .001). No extraprostatic radiographic changes were observed. Necropsy demonstrated no gross rectal, urethral, penile, or bladder changes. Histology revealed RE-induced changes in the treated prostatic tissues of the highest dose group, with gland atrophy and focal necrosis. No extraprostatic RE-related histologic findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS Prostate 90Y RE is safe and feasible in a canine model and leads to focal dose-dependent changes in the gland without inducing unwanted extraprostatic effects. These results suggest that an investigation of nonoperative prostate cancer is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samdeep K Mouli
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
| | - Simone Raiter
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Kathleen Harris
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Amrutha Mylarapu
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Malcolm Burks
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Weiguo Li
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Andrew C Gordon
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Ali Khan
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Monica Matsumoto
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Keith L Bailey
- Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
| | - Alexander S Pasciak
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Sasicha Manupipatpong
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Clifford R Weiss
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - David Casalino
- Department of Radiology, Section of Body Imaging, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Frank H Miller
- Department of Radiology, Section of Body Imaging, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Vanessa L Gates
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Elias Hohlastos
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Robert J Lewandowski
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Dong-Hyun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Section of Body Imaging, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Riad Salem
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC, Turkbey BI, Margolis DJ, Richenberg J, Schoots IG, Moore CM, Futterer J, Macura KJ, Oto A, Bittencourt LK, Haider MA, Salomon G, Tempany CM, Padhani AR, Barentsz JO. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR): International Consensus -based Guidelines on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Recurrence after Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:868-876. [PMID: 33582104 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2021] [Revised: 01/16/2021] [Accepted: 01/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Imaging techniques are used to identify local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) for salvage therapy and to exclude metastases that should be addressed with systemic therapy. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a reduction in the variability of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting is required to detect local PCa recurrence in men with biochemical relapse after local treatment with curative intent. OBJECTIVE To propose a standardised method for image acquisition and assessment of PCa local recurrence using MRI after radiation therapy (RP) and radical prostatectomy (RT). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) was formulated using the existing literature. An international panel of experts conducted a nonsystematic review of the literature. The PI-RR system was created via consensus through a combination of face-to-face and online discussions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Similar to with PI-RADS, based on the best available evidence and expert opinion, the minimum acceptable MRI parameters for detection of recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are set. Also, a simplified and standardised terminology and content of the reports that use five assessment categories to summarise the suspicion of local recurrence (PI-RR) are designed. PI-RR scores of 1 and 2 are assigned to lesions with a very low and low likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR 3 is assigned if the presence of recurrence is uncertain. PI-RR 4 and 5 are assigned for a high and very high likelihood of recurrence, respectively. PI-RR is intended to be used in routine clinical practice and to facilitate data collection and outcome monitoring for research. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides a structured reporting system (PI-RR) for MRI evaluation of local recurrence of PCa after RT and RP. PATIENT SUMMARY A new method called PI-RR was developed to promote standardisation and reduce variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating local recurrence of prostate cancer and guiding therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University/Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
| | - Geert Villeirs
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Jeffrey C Weinreb
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Baris I Turkbey
- National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Jonathan Richenberg
- Department of Imaging, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jurgen Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Katarzyna J Macura
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Aytekin Oto
- Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Masoom A Haider
- Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada
| | - Georg Salomon
- Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham &Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - Jelle O Barentsz
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
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: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [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
|
14
|
Singh S, Moore CM, Punwani S, Mitra AV, Bandula S. Long-term biopsy outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 24:612-622. [PMID: 33558660 PMCID: PMC8384630 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00323-6] [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: 09/16/2020] [Revised: 12/13/2020] [Accepted: 01/14/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Biopsy after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) is an infrequently used but potentially valuable technique to evaluate local recurrence and predict long-term outcomes. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of studies until March 2020 where a post-EBRT biopsy was performed on patients with low-to intermediate risk PCa, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the aggregate post-EBRT positive biopsy rate (≥2 years after EBRT) and the associated odds ratio (OR) of a positive biopsy on biochemical failure (BCF), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). A sensitivity analysis was performed which examined biopsy rate as a function of post-EBRT biopsy protocol, PCa risk, ADT usage and radiation dose. RESULTS A total of 22 studies were included, of which 10 were randomised controlled trials and 12 were cohort studies. Nine out of the 22 studies used dosing regimens consistent with the 2020 NCCN radiotherapy guidelines. The weighted-average positive biopsy rate across all 22 studies was 32% (95%-CI: 25-39%, n = 3017). In studies where post-treatment biopsy was part of the study protocol, the rate was 35% (95%-CI: 21-38%, n = 2450). In the subgroup of studies that conformed to the 2020 NCCN radiotherapy guidelines, this rate was 22% (95% CI: 19-41%, n = 832). Patients with positive biopsy had a 10-fold higher odds of developing BCF (OR of 10.3, 95%-CI: 3.7-28.7, p < 0.00001), 3-fold higher odds of developing distant metastasis (OR 3.1, 95%-CI: 2.1-4.7, p < 0.00001) and 5-fold higher odds of dying from their PCa (OR 5.1, 95%-CI: 2.6-10, p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION A positive biopsy after EBRT is associated with a poor prognosis compared to a negative biopsy. The post-EBRT positive biopsy rate is an important measure which provides additional insight when comparing EBRT to other treatment modalities for PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saurabh Singh
- grid.83440.3b0000000121901201Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Caroline M. Moore
- grid.83440.3b0000000121901201Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK ,grid.52996.310000 0000 8937 2257Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- grid.83440.3b0000000121901201Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anita V. Mitra
- grid.52996.310000 0000 8937 2257Cancer Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Steve Bandula
- grid.83440.3b0000000121901201Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK ,grid.52996.310000 0000 8937 2257Interventional Oncology Service, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Visser WCH, de Jong H, Melchers WJG, Mulders PFA, Schalken JA. Commercialized Blood-, Urinary- and Tissue-Based Biomarker Tests for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E3790. [PMID: 33339117 PMCID: PMC7765473 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123790] [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] [Received: 12/01/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 12/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
In the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer (PCa), the serum prostate-specific antigen test is widely used but is associated with low specificity. Therefore, blood-, urinary- and tissue-based biomarker tests have been developed, intended to be used in the diagnostic and prognostic setting of PCa. This review provides an overview of commercially available biomarker tests developed to be used in several clinical stages of PCa management. In the diagnostic setting, the following tests can help selecting the right patients for initial and/or repeat biopsy: PHI, 4K, MiPS, SelectMDx, ExoDx, Proclarix, ConfirmMDx, PCA3 and PCMT. In the prognostic setting, the Prolaris, OncotypeDx and Decipher test can help in risk-stratification of patients regarding treatment decisions. Following, an overview is provided of the studies available comparing the performance of biomarker tests. However, only a small number of recently published head-to-head comparison studies are available. In contrast, recent research has focused on the use of biomarker tests in relation to the (complementary) use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in PCa diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wieke C. H. Visser
- Department of Product Development, MDxHealth BV, 6534 AT Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (H.d.J.); (W.J.G.M.)
| | - Hans de Jong
- Department of Product Development, MDxHealth BV, 6534 AT Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (H.d.J.); (W.J.G.M.)
| | - Willem J. G. Melchers
- Department of Product Development, MDxHealth BV, 6534 AT Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (H.d.J.); (W.J.G.M.)
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Peter F. A. Mulders
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (P.F.A.M.); (J.A.S.)
| | - Jack A. Schalken
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (P.F.A.M.); (J.A.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Recommandations françaises du Comité de cancérologie de l’AFU – actualisation 2020–2022 : cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol 2020; 30:S136-S251. [DOI: 10.1016/s1166-7087(20)30752-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
17
|
O'Connor LP, Lebastchi AH, Horuz R, Rastinehad AR, Siddiqui MM, Grummet J, Kastner C, Ahmed HU, Pinto PA, Turkbey B. Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2020; 39:651-659. [PMID: 32583039 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03310-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2020] [Accepted: 06/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke P O'Connor
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amir H Lebastchi
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Rahim Horuz
- Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | - M Minhaj Siddiqui
- Division of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jeremy Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Christof Kastner
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 10 Center Drive Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, USA. .,, 10 Center Drive Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Ryg U, Lilleby W, Hole KH, Lund-Iversen M, Switlyk MD. Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer to the Intersphincteric Space: A Case Report. Urology 2020; 140:18-21. [PMID: 32199872 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 02/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Una Ryg
- Department of Radiology, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Wolfgang Lilleby
- Department of Oncology, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Knut H Hole
- Department of Radiology, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Marius Lund-Iversen
- Department of Pathology, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Marta D Switlyk
- Department of Radiology, Radiumhospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Sanguineti G, Bertini L, Faiella A, Ferriero MC, Marzi S, Farneti A, Landoni V. Response on DCE-MRI predicts outcome of salvage radiotherapy for local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. TUMORI JOURNAL 2020; 107:55-63. [PMID: 32180511 DOI: 10.1177/0300891620908950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the predictive role of response on dynamic contrast enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of visible local lesions in the setting of salvage radiotherapy (sRT) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS All patients referred for sRT for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy from February 2014 to September 2016 were considered eligible if they had been restaged with DCE-MRI and had been found to have a visible lesion in the prostatic bed, but no distant/nodal disease on choline positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT). Eligible patients were contacted during follow-up and offered reimaging with serial DCE-MRI until lesion resolution. Complete response (CR) was defined as the disappearance of the target lesion on DCE-MRI; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence was defined as a 0.2 ng/mL PSA rise above the nadir. Median follow-up after sRT was 41.5 months (range, 12.1-61.2 months). RESULTS Fifty-nine patients agreed to undergo repeated DCE-MRI for a total of 64 studied lesions. Overall, 57 lesions (89.1%) showed a CR after 1 (51 patients) or 2 (6 patients) scans, while 7 lesions did not show any change (no response [NR]). At 42 months, no evidence of biochemical disease (bNED) survival was 74.7±6.4% and 64.3±21.0% for patients with CR and NR lesions, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 3.181; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.157-64.364; p = 0.451). When only patients treated with sRT without androgen deprivation were selected (n = 41), bNED survival rates at 42 months were 72.1±8.0% and 0, respectively (HR, 52.830; 95% CI, 1.893-1474.110; p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS Patients whose lesions disappear during follow-up have a better outcome than those with unchanged lesions after sRT alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Luca Bertini
- Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Adriana Faiella
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Simona Marzi
- Medical Physics, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessia Farneti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Valeria Landoni
- Medical Physics, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. In this article, we discuss the evolving roles of imaging modalities in patients presenting with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. CONCLUSION. Multiple imaging modalities are currently available to evaluate patients with prostate cancer presenting with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) focuses on the postsurgical bed as well as regional lymph nodes and bones. PET/CT studies using 18F-fluciclovine, 11C-choline, and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands are useful in detecting locoregional and distant metastasis. Multiparametric MRI is preferred for patients with low risk of metastasis for localizing recurrence in prostate bed as well as pelvic lymph node and bone recurrence. Moreover, mpMRI aids in guiding biopsy and additional salvage treatments. For patients with high risk of metastatic disease, both mpMRI and whole-body PET/CT may be performed. PET/MRI using 68Ga-PSMA has potential to enable a one-stop shop for local recurrence and metastatic disease evaluation, and clinical trials of PET/MRI are ongoing.
Collapse
|
21
|
Olsson LE, Johansson M, Zackrisson B, Blomqvist LK. Basic concepts and applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2019; 9:50-57. [PMID: 33458425 PMCID: PMC7807726 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2018] [Revised: 12/27/2018] [Accepted: 02/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Recently, the interest to integrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy for prostate cancer has increased considerably. MRI can contribute in all steps of the radiotherapy workflow from diagnosis, staging, and target definition to treatment follow-up. Of particular interest is the ability of MRI to provide a wide range of functional measures. The complexity of MRI as an imaging modality combined with the growing interest of the application to prostate cancer radiotherapy, emphasize the need for dedicated education within the radiation oncology community. In this context, an overview of the most common as well as a few upcoming functional MR imaging techniques is presented: the basic methodology and measurement is described, the link between the functional measures and the underlying biology is established, and finally relevant applications of functional MRI useful for prostate cancer radiotherapy are given.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lars E Olsson
- Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Translational Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.,Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden
| | | | | | - Lennart K Blomqvist
- Department of Radiology, Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska University, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|