1
|
Purysko AS, Childes BJ, Ward RD, Bittencourt LK, Klein EA. Pitfalls in Prostate MRI Interpretation: A Pictorial Review. Semin Roentgenol 2021; 56:391-405. [PMID: 34688342 DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2021.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Accepted: 08/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrei S Purysko
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH..
| | - Benjamin J Childes
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Ryan D Ward
- Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Eric A Klein
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, Costa D, Renard-Penna R, Kim CK, Raman SS. PI-RADS Version 2.1: A Critical Review, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216:20-32. [PMID: 32997518 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.24495] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PI-RADS version 2.1 updates the technical parameters for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and revises the imaging interpretation criteria while maintaining the framework introduced in version 2. These changes have been considered an improvement, although some issues remain unresolved, and new issues have emerged. Areas for improvement discussed in this review include the need for more detailed mpMRI protocols with optimization for 1.5-T and 3-T systems; lack of validation of revised transition zone interpretation criteria and need for clarifications of the revised DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging criteria and central zone (CZ) assessment; the need for systematic evaluation and reporting of background changes in signal intensity in the prostate that can negatively affect cancer detection; creation of a new category for lesions that do not fit into the PI-RADS assessment categories (i.e., PI-RADS M category); inclusion of quantitative parameters beyond size to evaluate lesion aggressiveness; adjustments to the structured report template, including standardized assessment of the risk of extraprostatic extension; development of parameters for image quality and performance control; and suggestions for expansion of the system to other indications (e.g., active surveillance and recurrence).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrei S Purysko
- Section of Abdominal Imaging and Nuclear Radiology Department, Imaging Institute and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Mail Code JB-322, Cleveland, OH 44145
| | - Ronaldo H Baroni
- Section of Abdominal Imaging, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Costa
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Raphaële Renard-Penna
- Academic Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière and Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Chan Kyo Kim
- Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Sciences, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Steven S Raman
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Aghdam N, Pepin AN, Creswell M, Hsieh K, Smith C, Drescher N, Danner M, Ayoob M, Yung T, Lei S, Kumar D, Collins BT, Lischalk JW, Krishnan P, Suy S, Lynch J, Bandi G, Hankins RA, Collins SP. Management of Isolated Local Failures Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Low to Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 10:551491. [PMID: 33251131 PMCID: PMC7673419 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.551491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer (1). SBRT results in very low PSA nadirs secondary to the delivery of high biologically effective doses. Studies reporting on the diagnosis, confirmation, and management of salvageable isolated local failures (ILF) are limited. This study aims to determine the incidence and management approach of ILF after SBRT in a large single institution cohort. Method: All patients with low or intermediate risk localized prostate cancer treated with SBRT at Georgetown University Hospital were eligible for this study. Treatment was delivered using robotic SBRT with doses of 35-36.25 Gy in five fractions. ILF were diagnosed using multiparametric MRI and/or biopsy prompted by rising PSA levels after achieving long-term nadir. Patient's characteristics were extracted from a prospective institutional quality of life trial (IRB 2009-510). Type of salvage therapy and post-salvage PSA were determined on subsequent follow-up and chart review. Results: Between December 2008 to August 2018, 998 men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Twenty-four patients (low risk, n = 5; intermediate risk, n = 19) were found to have ILF within the prostate on either MRI (n = 19) and/or biopsy (n = 20). Median pre-treatment PSA was 7.55 ng/ml. Median time to diagnosis of ILF was 72 months (24-110 months) with median PSA at the time of ILF of 2.8 ng/ml (0.7-33 ng/ml). Median PSA doubling time was 17 months (5-47 months). Thirteen patients with biopsy proven ILF proceeded with salvage therapy (cryotherapy n = 12, HIFU n = 1). Of 12 patients who underwent cryotherapy, 7 had a post-treatment PSA of <0.1 ng/ml. One patient experienced a urethral-cutaneous fistula (grade 3 toxicity). Conclusion: The incidence of isolated local recurrence is rare in our cohort. Diagnosis and management of isolated local failures post-SBRT continues to evolve. Our report highlights the importance of early utilization of MRI and confirmatory biopsy at relatively low PSA levels and long PSA doubling time (1). Additionally, undetectable PSA levels after salvage therapy supports the role of early treatment in ILF (1). Further research is needed to determine appropriate patient selection and salvage modality in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nima Aghdam
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Abigail N. Pepin
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
- George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Michael Creswell
- Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Kristin Hsieh
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
- Columbia University Valegos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, United States
| | - Clayton Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | - Nicolette Drescher
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
- Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, United States
| | - Malika Danner
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Marilyn Ayoob
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Thomas Yung
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Siyuan Lei
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Deepak Kumar
- Julius L. Chambers Biomedical/Biotechnology Research Institute, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Brian Timothy Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Jonathan W. Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Pranay Krishnan
- Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Simeng Suy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - John Lynch
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Guarav Bandi
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Ryan Andrew Hankins
- Department of Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| | - Sean P. Collins
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Xu KM, Chen RC, Schuster DM, Jani AB. Role of novel imaging in the management of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2019; 37:611-618. [PMID: 31072791 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2018] [Revised: 03/13/2019] [Accepted: 04/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
This review summarizes novel imaging in the management of prostate cancer including multiparametric MRI, PET-CT scans with different radiotracers including 11C-acetate, 11C-choline, 18F-choline, 18F sodium fluoride, prostate-specific membrane antigen, and anti-1-amino-3-[18F] fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (fluciclovine).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen M Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Ronald C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - David M Schuster
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA
| | - Ashesh B Jani
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
| |
Collapse
|