Image visibility of cancer to enhance targeting precision and spatial mapping biopsy for focal therapy of prostate cancer

Up-to-Date Imaging and Diagnostic Techniques for Prostate Cancer: A Literature Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) faces great challenges in early diagnosis, which often leads not only to unnecessary, invasive procedures, but to over-diagnosis and treatment as well, thus highlighting the need for modern PCa diagnostic techniques. The review aims to provide an up-to-date summary of chronologically existing diagnostic approaches for PCa, as well as their potential to improve clinically significant PCa (csPCa) diagnosis and to reduce the proliferation and monitoring of PCa. Our review demonstrates the primary outcomes of the most significant studies and makes comparisons across the diagnostic efficacies of different PCa tests. Since prostate biopsy, the current mainstream PCa diagnosis, is an invasive procedure with a high risk of post-biopsy complications, it is vital we dig out specific, sensitive, and accurate diagnostic approaches in PCa and conduct more studies with milestone findings and comparable sample sizes to validate and corroborate the findings.

Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis

Recent advances in ultrasonography (US) technology established modalities, such as Doppler-US, HistoScanning, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), elastography, and micro-ultrasound. The early results of these US modalities have been promising, although there are limitations including the need for specialized equipment, inconsistent results, lack of standardizations, and external validation. In this review, we identified studies evaluating multiparametric ultrasonography (mpUS), the combination of multiple US modalities, for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In the past 5 years, a growing number of studies have shown that use of mpUS resulted in high PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) detection performance using radical prostatectomy histology as the reference standard. Recent studies have demonstrated the role mpUS in improving detection of CSPCa and guidance for prostate biopsy and therapy. Furthermore, some aspects including lower costs, real-time imaging, applicability for some patients who have contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and availability in the office setting are clear advantages of mpUS. Interobserver agreement of mpUS was overall low; however, this limitation can be improved using standardized and objective evaluation systems such as the machine learning model. Whether mpUS outperforms MRI is unclear. Multicenter randomized controlled trials directly comparing mpUS and multiparametric MRI are warranted.

Virtual reality of three-dimensional surgical field for surgical planning and intraoperative management

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of virtual reality (VR) technologies on urological surgeries, specifically in the management of prostate cancer and renal cancer.

METHODS

A non-systematic review of the literature was performed. Medline, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Database were screened for studies regarding the use of VR technologies in the management of prostate and renal cancer.

RESULTS

In the management of prostate cancer, VR technologies have been increasingly applied for diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy, surgical training using a simulator, surgical navigation in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and targeted focal therapy. In partial nephrectomy, surgical simulation and intra-surgical guidance with three-dimensional VR have been used for better understanding of the hilar vascular information, tumor location, and positional relationships of the tumor-feeding vessel and pyelocaliceal system.

CONCLUSIONS

VR contributes to the education, training, and simulation of surgical procedures as well as helping the surgeons to tailor surgical planning on each patient. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the beneficial impacts of this technology for both the physician and patient by objective parameters.

The accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive patients using combined magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy

Background

This study aimed to estimate whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy (FUS-TB) increases the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) compared with TRUS-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB).

Methods

This retrospective study focused on patients who underwent mpMRI before prostate biopsy (PB) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scores ≥3 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level between 2.5 and 20 ng/mL. Before FUS-TB, the biopsy needle position was checked virtually using three-dimensional mapping. After confirming the position of the target within the prostate, biopsy needle was inserted and PB was performed. Suspicious lesions were generally targeted with 2 to 4 cores. Subsequently, 10–12 cores were biopsied for TRUS-GB. The primary endpoint was the PCa detection rate (PCDR) for patients with PCa who underwent combined FUS-TB and TRUS-GB.

Results

According to PI-RADS v2, 76.7% of the patients with PI-RADS v2 score ≥3 were diagnosed with PCa. The PCDRs in patients with PI-RADS v2 score of 4 or 5 were significantly higher than those in patients with PI-RADS v2 score of 3 (3 vs. 4, P<0.001; 3 vs. 5, P<0.001; 4 vs. 5, P=0.073). According to PCDR, the detection rates of PCa and csPCa in the FUS-TB were significantly higher than that in the TRUS-GB.

Conclusions

Following detection of suspicious tumor lesions on mpMRI, FUS-TB use detects a higher number of PCa cases compared with TRUS-GB.

Artificial intelligence in urological oncology: An update and future applications

There continues to be rapid developments and research in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Urological Oncology worldwide. In this review we discuss the basics of AI, application of AI per tumour group (Renal, Prostate and Bladder Cancer) and application of AI in Robotic Urological Surgery. We also discuss future applications of AI being developed with the benefits to patients with Urological Oncology.

Five-alpha reductase inhibitors in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer: impact on treatment and reclassification after 6 years follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) on definitive treatment (DT) and pathological progression (PP) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

We identified 361 consecutive patients, from an IRB-approved database, on AS for prostate cancer with minimum 2 years follow-up. Patients were grouped into two cohorts, those using 5-ARIs (5-ARI; n = 119) or not using 5-ARIs (no 5-ARI; n = 242). Primary and secondary endpoints were treatment-free survival (TFS) and PP-free survival (PPFS), which were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariable cox regression analysis were used to identify predictors for PP and DT. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and the prostate biopsy rate were similar between the two groups. Median (range) follow-up was 5.7 (2.0-17.2) years. Five-year and 10-year TFS was 92% and 59% for the 5-ARI group versus 80% and 51% for the no 5-ARI group (p = 0.005), respectively. Five-year and 10-year PPFS was 77% and 41% for the 5-ARI group versus 70% and 32% for the no 5-ARI group (p = 0.04), respectively. Independent predictors for treatment and PP were not taking 5-ARIs (p = 0.005; p = 0.02), entry PSA > 2.5 ng/mL (p = 0.03; p = 0.01) and Gleason pattern 4 on initial biopsy (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), respectively. The main limitation is the retrospective study design.

CONCLUSIONS

5-ARIs reduces reclassification and cross-over to treatment in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Further, taking 5-ARIs was an independent predictor for prostate cancer progression and definitive treatment.

Artificial intelligence in multiparametric prostate cancer imaging with focus on deep-learning methods

Prostate cancer represents today the most typical example of a pathology whose diagnosis requires multiparametric imaging, a strategy where multiple imaging techniques are combined to reach an acceptable diagnostic performance. However, the reviewing, weighing and coupling of multiple images not only places additional burden on the radiologist, it also complicates the reviewing process. Prostate cancer imaging has therefore been an important target for the development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) tools. In this survey, we discuss the advances in CAD for prostate cancer over the last decades with special attention to the deep-learning techniques that have been designed in the last few years. Moreover, we elaborate and compare the methods employed to deliver the CAD output to the operator for further medical decision making.

The Role of Transrectal Ultrasound for Finding Focal Lesions in Prostate Cancer Detection Compared to Systematic Sextant Biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the difference in cancer detection rate between targeted biopsy of focal lesions detected on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and systematic sextant biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between April 2014 and April 2017 and classified them into three groups: (1) sextant biopsy group patients underwent systematic sextant biopsy without evaluation of focal lesions on TRUS (n = 400), (2) focal lesion group patients underwent targeted biopsy for TRUS-detected lesions (n = 496), and (3) nonfocal lesion group patients had no TRUS-detected focal lesions (n = 222). Positive biopsy rates were compared using Chi-square tests between biopsy groups in all patients and two subgroups divided by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 ng/mL.

RESULTS

The positive biopsy rate decreased in the order of the focal lesion group, the sextant biopsy group, and the nonfocal lesion group. All prostate cancers and prostate cancers with a Gleason score ≥7 were detected more frequently among patients with PSA ≤10 ng/mL in the focal lesion group than in the sextant biopsy group ( p = 0.008 and 0.007, respectively) and less frequently among patients with PSA >10 ng/mL in the nonfocal lesion group than in the sextant biopsy group ( p = 0.007 and 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, searching focal lesion by TRUS is useful for improving the positive biopsy rate and risk stratification of PCa compared to systematic sextant biopsy without careful TRUS examination.

Prostate cancer detection rate according to lesion visibility using ultrasound and MRI

AIM

To evaluate the difference in prostate cancer detection rates according to lesion visibility using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in 2016 and 2017 (n=1,022) were divided into three groups: (1) patients who did not undergo a prebiopsy MRI (group 1, n=622); (2) patients without visible lesions on the prebiopsy MRI (group 2, n=77); and (3) patients with visible lesions on the prebiopsy MRI (group 3, n=323). Biopsy results were compared using chi-square tests or independent t-tests between patients with and without TRUS-visible lesions in each group. A logistic regression test was used to determine the variables independently associated with the detection of clinically significant cancer.

RESULTS

Focal lesions were visible on TRUS in 710 patients. Clinically significant cancers were detected in 39.4% and 13.1% of patients with and without TRUS-visible lesions, respectively (p<0.001). The cancer detection rate was significantly higher in patients with TRUS-visible lesions in groups 1 and 3 (p<0.001). Within group 1, the Gleason scores, number of positive cores, and the cancer involvement ratios were significantly greater in patients with TRUS-visible lesions than in patients without TRUS-visible lesions. MRI- and TRUS visibility were positively associated with the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

TRUS- and MRI-visible focal lesions in the prostate were significantly associated with the detection of clinically significant cancer.

Primary Whole-gland Cryoablation for Prostate Cancer: Biochemical Failure and Clinical Recurrence at 5.6 Years of Follow-up

We retrospectively evaluated complications and functional and oncologic outcomes of 94 consecutive men who underwent primary whole-gland cryoablation for localized prostate cancer (PCa) from 2002 to 2012. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed using a landmark starting at 6 mo of follow-up. In total, 75% patients had D'Amico intermediate- (48%) or high- (27%) risk PCa. Median follow-up was 5.6 yr. Median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir was 3.3 mo, and 70 patients reached PSA <0.2ng/ml postcryoablation. The 90-d high-grade (Clavien Grade IIIa) complication rate was 3%, with no rectal fistulas reported. Continence and potency rates were 96% and 11%, respectively. The 5-yr biochemical failure-free survival (PSA nadir+2ng/ml) was 81% overall and 89% for low-, 78% for intermediate-, and 80% for high-risk PCa (p=0.46). The median follow-up was 5.6 and 5.1 yr for patients without biochemical failure and with biochemical failure, respectively. The 5-yr clinical recurrence-free survival was 83% overall and 94% for low-, 84% for intermediate-, and 69% for high-risk PCa (p=0.046). Failure to reach PSA nadir <0.2ng/ml within 6 mo postcryoablation was an independent predictor for biochemical failure (p=0.006) and clinical recurrence (p=0.03). The 5-yr metastases-free survival was 95%. Main limitation is retrospective evaluation. Primary whole-gland cryoablation for PCa provides acceptable medium-term oncologic outcomes and could be an alternative for radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cryoablation is a safe, minimally-invasive procedure that uses cold temperatures delivered via probes through the skin to kill prostate cancer (PCa) cells. Whole-gland cryoablation may offer an alternative treatment option to surgery and radiotherapy. We found that patients had good cancer outcomes 5 yr after whole-gland cryoablation, and those with a prostate-specific antigen value ≥0.2ng/ml within 6 mo after treatment were more likely to have PCa recurrence.

[Interest using 3D ultrasound and MRI fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection]

INTRODUCTION

The strategic therapy for prostate cancer depends on histo-pronostics data, which could be upgraded by obtaining targeted biopsies (TB) with MRI (magnetic resonance imagery) fusion 3D ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES

To compare diagnostic yield of image fusion guided prostate biopsy using image fusion of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) with 3D-TRUS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2010 and April 2013, 179 consecutive patients underwent outpatient TRUS biopsy using the real-time 3D TRUS tracking system (Urostation™). These patients underwent MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsies (TB) with 3D volume data of the MRI elastically fused with 3D TRUS at the time of biopsy.

RESULTS

A hundred and seventy-three patients had TBs with fusion. Mean biopsy core per patient were 11.1 (6-14) for SB and 2.4 (1-6) for TB. SBs were positive in 11% compared to 56% for TB (P<0.001). TB outperformed systematic biopsy(SB) in overall any cancer detection rate, detection of clinically significant cancer (58% vs. 36%), cancer core length (6.8mm vs. 2.8mm), and cancer rate per core (P<0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, with TB we have more chance to find a clinically significant cancer (OR:3.72 [2-6.95]). When both TRUS and MRI are positive, there is 2.73 more chance to find a clinically significant cancer.

CONCLUSION

MR/TRUS elastic fusion-guided biopsies outperform systematic random biopsies in diagnosing clinically significant cancer. Ability of interpretation of real-time TRUS is essential to perform the higher level of MR/US fusion and should be use for active surveillance.

LEVEL OF PROOF

4.

3D surface-based registration of ultrasound and histology in prostate cancer imaging

Several transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based techniques aiming at accurate localization of prostate cancer are emerging to improve diagnostics or to assist with focal therapy. However, precise validation prior to introduction into clinical practice is required. Histopathology after radical prostatectomy provides an excellent ground truth, but needs accurate registration with imaging. In this work, a 3D, surface-based, elastic registration method was developed to fuse TRUS images with histopathologic results. To maximize the applicability in clinical practice, no auxiliary sensors or dedicated hardware were used for the registration. The mean registration errors, measured in vitro and in vivo, were 1.5±0.2 and 2.1±0.5mm, respectively.

Image-based monitoring of targeted biopsy-proven prostate cancer on active surveillance: 11-year experience

PURPOSE

To report our 11-year experience of Active Surveillance (AS) program focusing on modern transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based monitoring of targeted biopsy-proven cancer lesion.

METHODS

Consecutive patients on AS, who had targeted biopsy-proven lesion followed by at least a repeat surveillance biopsy and three times TRUS monitoring of the identical visible lesion, were included. Doppler grade of blood flow signal within the lesion was classified from grade 0 to 3. Biopsy-proven progression was defined as upgrade of Gleason score or 25% or greater increase in cancer core involvement.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in this study. Clinical variables (median) included age (61 years), clinical stage (T1c, 42;T2, 8), PSA (4.6 ng/ml), and Gleason score (3 + 3, n = 41;3 + 4, n = 9). Of the 50 patients, 34 demonstrated pathological progression at a median follow-up of 4.4 years. In comparing between without (n = 16) and with (n = 34) pathological progression, there were significant differences in cancer core involvement at entry (p = 0.003), the major axis diameter (p = 0.001) and minor axis diameter (p = 0.001) of the visible lesion at entry, increase in the major axis diameter (p = 0.005) and minor axis diameter (p = 0.013), and upgrade of Doppler grade (p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis for predicting pathological progression, the increase (≥25%) in diameter of biopsy-proven lesion (hazard ratio, 15.314; p = 0.023) and upgrade of Doppler grade (hazard ratio, 37.409; p = 0.019) were significant risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal monitoring of the TRUS-visible biopsy-proven cancer provides a new opportunity to perform per-lesion-based AS. The increase in diameter and upgrade of Doppler grade of the lesion were significant risk factors for biopsy-proven progression on AS.

Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic yield of targeted prostate biopsy using image-fusion of multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mp-MR) with real-time trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) for clinically significant lesions that are suspicious only on mp-MR versus lesions that are suspicious on both mp-MR and TRUS.

METHODS

Pre-biopsy MRI and TRUS were each scaled on a 3-point score: highly suspicious, likely, and unlikely for clinically significant cancer (sPCa). Using an MR-TRUS elastic image-fusion system (Koelis), a 127 consecutive patients with a suspicious clinically significant index lesion on pre-biopsy mp-MR underwent systematic biopsies and MR/US-fusion targeted biopsies (01/2010-09/2013). Biopsy histological outcomes were retrospectively compared with MR suspicion level and TRUS-visibility of the MR-suspicious lesion. sPCa was defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

Targeted biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies in overall cancer detection rate (61 vs. 41 %; p = 0.007), sPCa detection rate (43 vs. 23 %; p = 0.0013), cancer core length (7.5 vs. 3.9 mm; p = 0.0002), and cancer rate per core (56 vs. 12 %; p < 0.0001), respectively. Highly suspicious lesions on mp-MR correlated with higher positive biopsy rate (p < 0.0001), higher Gleason score (p = 0.018), and greater cancer core length (p < 0.0001). Highly suspicious lesions on TRUS in corresponding to MR-suspicious lesion had a higher biopsy yield (p < 0.0001) and higher sPCa detection rate (p < 0.0001). Since majority of MR-suspicious lesions were also suspicious on TRUS, TRUS-visibility allowed selection of the specific MR-visible lesion which should be targeted from among the multiple TRUS suspicious lesions in each prostate.

CONCLUSIONS

MR-TRUS fusion-image-guided biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies. TRUS-visibility of a MR-suspicious lesion facilitates image-guided biopsies, resulting in higher detection of significant cancer.

Supporting prostate cancer focal therapy: a multidisciplinary International Consensus of Experts ("ICE")

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy among men, and the current screening, imaging and sampling approaches aim to detect early-stage, organ-confined disease. In such scenario, focal prostate cancer therapy currently relies on the index lesion concept as the dominant lesion that drives the disease natural history. Focal therapy demands the essential imaging and sampling techniques to strategically locate and qualify the disease, but, despite advances in technology, prostate imaging and biopsy have several limitations that need to be overcome if focal therapy is to be developed further. The I Prostate Cancer Focal Treatment International Symposium was convened to foster discussion on this topic that sits at the crossroads of multiple disciplines (Urology, Pathology, Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology) all of which were represented for this comprehensive multidisciplinary review of the current literature.