Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging facilitates reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Transperineal versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a large, ethnically diverse, and multiracial cohort

PURPOSE

To compare transperineal (TP) vs transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy (PBx) in a large, ethnically diverse and multiracial cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent multiparametric (mp) MRI followed by TP or TR TRUS-fusion guided PBx, were identified from a prospective database (IRB #HS-13-00663). All patients underwent mpMRI followed by 12-14 core systematic PBx. A minimum of two additional target-biopsy cores were taken per PIRADS≥3 lesion. The endpoint was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group, GG≥2). Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 1491 patients met inclusion criteria, with 480 undergoing TP and 1011 TR PBx. Overall, 11% of patients were Asians, 5% African Americans, 14% Hispanic, 14% Others, and 56% White, similar between TP and TR (p=0.4). For PIRADS 3-5, the TP PBx CSPCa detection was significantly higher (61% vs 54%, p=0.03) than TR PBx, but not for PIRADS 1-2 (13% vs 13%, p=1.0). After adjusting for confounders on multivariable analysis, Black race, but not the PBx approach (TP vs TR), was an independent predictor of CSPCa detection. The median maximum cancer core length (11 vs 8mm; p<0.001) and percent (80% vs 60%; p<0.001) were greater for TP PBx even after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large and diverse cohort, Black race, but not the biopsy approach, was an independent predictor for CSPCa detection. TP and TR PBx yielded similar CSPCa detection rates; however the TP PBx was histologically more informative.

The learning curve for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy: A prospective evaluation of a stepwise approach

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of a transperineal (TP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing MRI followed by TP PBx from May/2017 to January/2023, were prospectively enrolled (IRB# HS-13-00663). All participants underwent MRI followed by 12 to 14 core systematic PBx (SB), with at least 2 additional targeted biopsy (TB) cores per PIRADS ≥3. The biopsies were performed transperineally using an organ tracking image-fusion system. The cohort was divided into chronological quintiles. An inflection point analysis was performed to determine proficiency. Operative time was defined from insertion to removal of the TRUS probe from the patient's rectum. Grade Group ≥2 defined clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). Statistically significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 370 patients were included and divided into quintiles of 74 patients. MRI findings and PIRADS distribution were similar between quintiles (P = 0.08). The CSPCa detection with SB+TB was consistent across quintiles: PIRADS 1 and 2 (range, 0%-18%; P = 0.25); PIRADS 3 to 5 (range, 46%-70%; P = 0.12). The CSPCa detection on PIRADS 3 to 5 TB alone, for quintiles 1 to 5, was respectively 44%, 58%, 66%, 41%, and 53% (P = 0.08). The median operative time significantly decreased for PIRADS 1 and 2 (33 min to 13 min; P < 0.01) and PIRADS 3 to 5 (48 min to 19 min; P < 0.01), reaching a plateau after 156 cases. Complications were not significantly different across quintiles (range, 0-5.4%; P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSPCa detection remained consistently satisfactory throughout the learning curve of the Transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. However, the operative time significantly decreased with proficiency achieved after 156 cases.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa.

METHODS

The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

Transperineal vs transrectal magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion prostate biopsy: a pair-matched comparison

The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3-5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1-2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3-5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3-5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance in active surveillance of a low-risk prostate cancer cohort from clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is considered a suitable management practice for those patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At present, however, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS protocols has not yet been clearly established.

OUTCOMES

To determine the role of mpMRI and its ability to detect significant prostate cancer (SigPCa) in PCa patients enrolled in AS protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 229 patients enrolled in an AS protocol between 2011 and 2020 at Reina Sofía University Hospital. MRI interpretation was based on PIRADS v.1 or v.2/2.1 classification. Demographics, clinical, and analytical data were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for mpMRI in different scenarios. We defined SigPCa and reclassification/progression as a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, a clinical stage ≥T2b, or an increase in PCa volume. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate progression-free survival time.

RESULTS

Median age was 69.02 (±7.73) at diagnosis, with a 0.15 (±0.08) PSA density (PSAD). Eighty-six patients were reclassified after confirmatory biopsy, with a suspicious mpMRI an indication for a clear reclassification and risk-predictor factor in disease progression (p < 0.05). During follow-up, 46 patients were changed from AS to active treatment mainly due to disease progression. Ninety patients underwent ≥2mpMRI during follow-up, with a median follow-up of 29 (15-49) months. Thirty-four patients had a baseline suspicious mpMRI (at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy): 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 and 20 patients with ≥PIRADS 4. From 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 baseline mpMRI, 29% progressed radiologically, with a 50% progression rate versus 10% (1/10 patients) for those with similar or decreased mpMRI risk. Of the 56 patients with a non-suspicious baseline mpMRI (PIRADS < 2), 14 patients (25%) had an increased degree of radiological suspicion, with a detection rate of SigPCa of 29%. The mpMRI NPV during follow-up was 0.91.

CONCLUSION

A suspicious mpMRI increases the reclassification and disease progression risk during follow-up and plays an important role in monitoring biopsies. In addition, a high NPV at mpMRI follow-up can help to decrease the need to monitor biopsies during AS.

Risk and predictors of adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy in patients diagnosed with IUSP 1-2 prostate cancer at MRI-targeted biopsy: a multicenter analysis

PURPOSE

Although active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low- to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa), risk of upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP) is not negligible. Available studies based on systematic transrectal ultrasound biopsy might not be applicable to contemporary cohorts diagnosed with MRI-targeted biopsy (TB). The aim of the present study is to explore rates and risk factors for adverse outcomes (AO) at RP in patients with ISUP ≤ 2 PCa detected at TB with concomitant systematic biopsy (SB).

METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective analysis of 475 consecutive patients with ISUP ≤ 2 PCa at MRI-TB + SB is treated with RP. AO were defined as ISUP upgrading, adverse pathology (upgrading to ISUP ≥ 3 and/or ≥ pT3 at RP, and/or pN1) (AP) or biochemical recurrence (BCR) in men with follow-up (n = 327).

RESULTS

The rate of ISUP upgrading, upgrading ≥ 3, and AP were 39%, 21%, and 43%. Compared to ISUP2, men with ISUP1 PCa had a higher rate of overall upgrading (27 vs. 67%, p < 0.001), but less upgrading to ≥ 3 (27 vs. 10%, p < 0.001). AP was more common when ISUP2 was detected with a combined MRI-TB + SB approach compared to considering TB (p = 0.02) or SB (p = 0.01) alone. PSA, PSA density, PI-RADS, ISUP at TB, overall biopsy ISUP and EAU classification were predictors of upgrading to ISUP ≥ 3 and AP. The 1 year BCR-free survival was 94% with no differences in BCR rates between subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Upgrading in ISUP ≤ 2 PCa remains prevalent even in men diagnosed in the MRI era. The use of MRI-TB with concomitant SB allows for the accurate identification of ISUP2 PCa and predicts the risk of AO at RP.

Unified model involving genomics, magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density outperforms individual co-variables at predicting biopsy upgrading in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is the reference standard treatment for the management of low risk prostate cancer (PCa). Accurate assessment of tumor aggressiveness guides recruitment to AS programs to avoid conservative treatment of intermediate and higher risk patients. Nevertheless, underestimating the disease risk may occur in some patients recruited, with biopsy upgrading and the concomitant potential for delayed treatment.

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of mpMRI and GPS for the prediction of biopsy upgrading during active surveillance (AS) management of prostate cancer (PCa).

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed on 144 patients recruited to AS from October 2013 to December 2020. Median follow was 4.8 (IQR 3.6, 6.3) years. Upgrading was defined as upgrading to biopsy grade group ≥2 on follow up biopsies. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to investigate the effect of PSA density (PSAD), baseline Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1 score and GPS on upgrading. Time-to-event outcome, defined as upgrading, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test.

RESULTS

Overall rate of upgrading was 31.9% (n = 46). PSAD was higher in the patients who were upgraded (0.12 vs. 0.08 ng/ml2 , p = .005), while no significant difference was present for median GPS in the overall cohort (overall median GPS 21; 22 upgrading vs. 20 no upgrading, p = .2044). On univariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the factors associated with increased risk of biopsy upgrading were PSA (HR = 1.30, CI 1.16-1.47, p = <.0001), PSAD (HR = 1.08, CI 1.05-1.12, p = <.0001) and higher PI-RADS score (HR = 3.51, CI 1.56-7.91, p = .0024). On multivariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis, only PSAD (HR = 1.10, CI 1.06-1.14, p = <.001) and high PI-RADS score (HR = 4.11, CI 1.79-9.44, p = .0009) were associated with upgrading. A cox regression model combining these three clinical features (PSAD ≥0.15 ng/ml2 at baseline, PI-RADS Score and GPS) yielded a concordance index of 0.71 for the prediction of upgrading.

CONCLUSION

In this study PSAD has higher accuracy over baseline PI-RADS score and GPS score for the prediction of PCa upgrading during AS. However, combined use of PSAD, GPS and PI-RADS Score yielded the highest predictive ability with a concordance index of 0.71.

Multicenter external validation of the radical cystectomy pentafecta in a European cohort of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer

OBJECTIVE

To perform an external validation of this RC-pentafecta.

METHOD

Between January 2014 and December 2019, 104 consecutive patients who underwent RARC with ICUD within 6 urological centers were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who simultaneously demonstrated negative soft tissue surgical margins (STSMs), a lymph node (LN) yield ≥ 16, absence of major (Clavien-Dindo grade III-V) 90-day postoperative complications, absence of UD-related long-term sequelae, and absence of 12-month clinical recurrence were considered to have achieved RC-pentafecta. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to measure predictors for achieving RC-pentafecta. We analyzed the influence of this RC-pentafecta on survival, and the impact ofthe surgical experience.

RESULTS

Since 2014, 104 patients who had completed at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, a LN yield ≥ 16, negative STSMs, absence of major complications at 90 days, and absence of UD-related surgical sequelae and clinical recurrence at ≤ 12 months were observed in 56%, 96%, 85%, 81%, and 91% of patients, respectively, resulting in a RC-pentafecta rate of 39.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age was an independent predictor of pentafecta achievement (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90. 0.99; p = 0.04). The surgeon experience had an impact on the validation of the criteria.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that the RC-pentafecta is reproducible and could be externally used for the outcome assessment after RARC with ICUD. Therefore, the RC-pentafecta could be a useful tool to assess surgical success and its impact on different outcomes.

Repeat MRI during active surveillance: natural history of prostatic lesions and upgrading rates

OBJECTIVES

To assess upgrading rates in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) after serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 558 patients. Five different criteria for mpMRI progression were used: 1) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score increase; 2) a lesion size increase; 3) an extraprostatic extension score increase; 4) overall mpMRI progression; and 5) the number of criteria met for mpMRI progression (0 vs 1 vs 2-3). In addition, two definitions of PCa upgrading were evaluated: 1) International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) ≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 and 2) ISUP GG ≥ 3. Estimated annual percent changes methodology was used to show the temporal trends of mpMRI progression criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI progression criteria were also analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models tested PCa upgrading rates.

RESULTS

Lower rates over time for all mpMRI progression criteria were observed. The NPV of serial mpMRI scans ranged from 90.5% to 93.5% (ISUP GG≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 PCa upgrading) and from 98% to 99% (ISUP GG≥3 PCa upgrading), depending on the criteria used for mpMRI progression. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used to substratify those patients who would be able to skip a prostate biopsy. In multivariable logistic regression models assessing PCa upgrading rates, all five mpMRI progression criteria achieved independent predictor status.

CONCLUSION

During AS, approximately 27% of patients experience mpMRI progression at first repeat MRI. However, the rates of mpMRI progression decrease over time at subsequent mpMRI scans. Patients with stable mpMRI findings and with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/mL could safely skip surveillance biopsies. Conversely, patients who experience mpMRI progression should undergo a prostate biopsy.

Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.

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.