1
|
Chen Z, Zhou B, Liu W, Gan H, Chen R, Yang L, Zhou L, Liu X. Diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement among readers with variable experience of the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting system with whole-mount histology after androgen deprivation therapy as a reference. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024; 14:3006-3017. [PMID: 38617164 PMCID: PMC11007506 DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-1643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
Background The Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system was recently proposed to assess the local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa), but its exact performance for the prostate after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy is difficult to determine. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of this system using whole-mount histology of the prostate after androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as the standard of reference. Methods In total, 119 patients with PCa post-ADT underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) before prostatectomy. Three radiologists analyzed the MRI images independently, scoring imaging findings according to PI-RR. Spearman correlation was performed to assess the relationship between the percentage of sectors with residual cancer and PI-RR score. The diagnostic performance for detection of residual cancer was assessed on a per-sector basis. The chi-squared test was used to compare the cancer detection rate (CDR) among readers. Overall and pairwise interreader agreement in assigning PI-RR categories and residual cancer sectors with a score ≥3 or ≥4 were evaluated with the Cohen kappa coefficient. Results Histology revealed 209 sectors with residual cancer. The percentage of pathologically positive sectors increased with the increase in PI-RR score for all readers. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) at a cutoff of score 3 ranged from 74.2% to 83.7%, 86.4% to 92.7%, 51.3% to 64.3%, and 95.4% to 96.9%, respectively, and at a cutoff of score 4, they ranged from 47.4% to 56.5%, 97.9% to 98.6%, 82.5% to 85.3%, and 91.6% to 92.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the CDR of readers. In PI-RR categories and detection of residual cancer sectors, overall interreader agreement was moderate for all readers, but agreement was higher between the more experienced readers (moderate to substantial) than between the more and less experienced readers (fair to moderate). Conclusions MRI scoring with the PI-RR assessment provided accurate evaluation of PCa after ADT, but readers' experience influenced interreader agreement and cancer diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhangzhe Chen
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Radiology, Shanghai Geriatric Medical Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Bingni Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hualei Gan
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
- Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Ruchuan Chen
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Lirui Yang
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
- Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Liangping Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaohang Liu
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
Adams ES, Deivasigamani S, Mottaghi M, Huang J, Gupta RT, Polascik TJ. Evaluation of Recurrent Disease after Radiation Therapy for Patients Considering Local Salvage Therapy: Past vs. Contemporary Management. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5883. [PMID: 38136427 PMCID: PMC10741753 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Recurrent prostate cancer after primary treatment with radiation therapy is a common problem. Patients with localized recurrence may benefit from salvage therapy, but careful patient selection is crucial because not all patients will benefit from local salvage therapy, and salvage therapy has increased morbidity compared to primary treatments for prostate cancer. This review aims to provide an overview of the evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy and how it is continuing to evolve with increasing data on outcomes, as well as improving technologies and techniques. Our enhanced understanding of treatment outcomes and risk stratification has influenced the identification of patients who may benefit from local salvage treatment. Advances in imaging and biopsy techniques have enhanced the accuracy of locating the recurrence, which affects treatment decisions. Additionally, the growing interest in image-targeted ablative therapies that have less morbidity and complications than whole-gland therapies for suitable patients influences the evaluation process for those considering focal salvage therapy. Although significant changes have been made in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy, it remains unclear whether these changes will ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric S. Adams
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | | | - Mahdi Mottaghi
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Jiaoti Huang
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Rajan T. Gupta
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Thomas J. Polascik
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zapała P, Ślusarczyk A, Rajwa P, Gandaglia G, Zapała Ł, Zattoni F, Lorenc T, Ploussard G, Radziszewski P. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local staging before salvage radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Urol 2023; 41:1275-1284. [PMID: 37019997 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04383-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 03/24/2023] [Indexed: 04/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a local and nodal staging tool in radio-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is still unclear. The present study aims at evaluating the predictive value of MRI in the detection of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesical invasion (SVI) and nodal involvement (LNI) in patients after primary radio (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT) before salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). METHODS This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systemically reviewed to extract the data on diagnostic performance of MRI in radio-recurrent PCa. RESULTS Four studies comprising 94 radio-recurrent PCa patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ECE, SVI, and LNI was 61%, 41%, and 20%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity for ECE, SVI and LNI detection was 53% (CI 95% 19.8-83.6%), 53% (CI 95% 37.2-68%) and 33% (CI 95% 4.7-83.1%) respectively, whereas specificity was 75% (CI 95% 40.6-92.6%), 88% (CI 95% 71.7-95.9%) and 92% (CI 95% 79.6-96.8%). The sensitivity analysis revealed that a single outlying study using only T2-weighted imaging instead of multiparametric MRI reported significantly higher sensitivity with significantly lower specificity. CONCLUSIONS This is the first meta-analysis reporting reliability of staging MRI in a radio-recurrent setting. MRI provides poor sensitivity while maintaining high specificity for local and nodal staging before SRP. However, current evidence is limited to the low number of heterogenous studies at meaningful risk of bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Piotr Zapała
- Clinic of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Lindleya 4, 02-005, Warsaw, Poland.
| | - Aleksander Ślusarczyk
- Clinic of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Lindleya 4, 02-005, Warsaw, Poland.
| | - Paweł Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Łukasz Zapała
- Clinic of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Lindleya 4, 02-005, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, 35128, Padua, Italy
| | - Tomasz Lorenc
- 1St Department of Clinical Radiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | | | - Piotr Radziszewski
- Clinic of General, Oncological and Functional Urology, Medical University of Warsaw, Lindleya 4, 02-005, Warsaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rajwa P, Pfister D, Rieger C, Heidenreich J, Drzezga A, Persigehl T, Shariat SF, Heidenreich A. Importance of magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients treated with salvage radical prostatectomy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Prostate 2023; 83:385-391. [PMID: 36564936 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 11/06/2022] [Accepted: 12/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate staging and identification of optimal candidates for local salvage therapy, such as salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP), is necessary to ensure optimal care in patients with radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to analyze performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for predicting pathologic nonorgan confined disease (pT3) and lymph node involvement (pN+) in patients treated with SRP for radiorecurrent PCa. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the institutional database to identify patients who underwent MRI or 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT before SRP for radiorecurrent PCa. The diagnostic estimates of MRI and PSMA-PET/CT for pT3 and pN+, were calculated. RESULTS We identified 113 patients with radiorecurrent PCa who underwent preoperative MRI followed by SRP; 53 had preoperative 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT. For the detection of pT3 disease, the overall accuracy of MRI was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61-78), sensitivity 40% (95% CI 26-55) and specificity 94% (95% CI 85-98); PSMA-PET/CT had slightly higher accuracy of 77% (95% CI 64-88), and higher sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 68-99), but lower specificity of 70% (95% CI 51-84). For pN+ disease, MRI had poor sensitivity of 14% (95% CI 3-36), specificity of 50 (95% CI 39-61) and total accuracy of 43% (95% CI 34-53); PSMA-PET/CT had an accuracy of 85% (95% CI 72-93), sensitivity of 27% (95% CI 6-61), and specificity of 100% (95% CI 92-100). CONCLUSION In patients with radiorecurrent PCa, both, MRI, and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT are valuable tools for the pre-SRP staging and should be integrated into the standard workup. For lymph node metastases, 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT is a strong rule-in test with nearly perfect specificity; in contrast MRI had a low accuracy for lymph node metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - David Pfister
- Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Constantin Rieger
- Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Julian Heidenreich
- Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Alexander Drzezga
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thorsten Persigehl
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Axel Heidenreich
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot-Assisted and Specialized Urologic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Büchser D, Medina R, Mayrata E, González A, Marban M, Achard V, Alongi F, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Couñago F. Salvage local treatment for localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer: a narrative review and future perspectives. Future Oncol 2021; 17:4207-4219. [PMID: 34448402 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-0320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Although dose escalation protocols have improved biochemical control in prostate cancer radiotherapy, 10-45% of patients will experience disease recurrence. The prostate and seminal vesicles are the most frequent site of the first relapse. Traditionally, these patients have been managed with hormonal therapy, which is not curative. Recent improvements in diagnostic tests (e.g., multiparametric magnetic resonance and molecular imaging, including PET/CT scan with choline or Ga-PSMA) and new treatment techniques (e.g., stereotactic body radiation therapy or other minimally invasive alternatives like high-intensity focus ultrasound, cryoablation or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) offer new therapeutic strategies with the potential to cure some patients with limited adverse effects. In this narrative review, the authors present the most recent evidence to help identify the most suitable candidates for salvage treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Büchser
- Radiation Oncology, Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo 48903, Spain
| | - Rafael Medina
- Urology, Virgen del Rocio University Hospital, Sevilla 41013, Spain
| | - Esther Mayrata
- Radiation Oncology, Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo 48903, Spain
| | - Alba González
- Radiation Oncology, Basurto University Hospital, Bilbao 48013, Spain.,Radiation Oncology, Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, 48903 Barakaldo, Spain
| | - Marina Marban
- Radiation Oncology, Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo 48903, Spain
| | - Vérane Achard
- Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva 1205, Switzerland
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Care Center, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar 37024, Italy
| | - Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga
- Radiation Oncology, Biocruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo 48903, Spain
| | - Felipe Couñago
- Radiation Oncology, Quirón Salud University Hospital, Madrid 28223, Spain.,Radiation Oncology, La Luz Hospital, Madrid 28003, Spain.,Clinical Department, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid 28670, Spain
| |
Collapse
|