1
|
Margolis DJA, Chatterjee A, deSouza NM, Fedorov A, Fennessy FM, Maier SE, Obuchowski N, Punwani S, Purysko A, Rakow-Penner R, Shukla-Dave A, Tempany CM, Boss M, Malyarenko D. Quantitative Prostate MRI, From the AJR Special Series on Quantitative Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2024. [PMID: 39356481 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.24.31715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/03/2024]
Abstract
Prostate MRI has traditionally relied on qualitative interpretation. However, quantitative components hold the potential to markedly improve performance. The ADC from DWI is probably the most widely recognized quantitative MRI biomarker and has shown strong discriminatory value for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) as well as for recurrent cancer after treatment. Advanced diffusion techniques, including intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion kurtosis, diffusion tensor imaging, and specific implementations such as restriction spectrum imaging, purport even better discrimination, but are more technically challenging. The inherent T1 and T2 of tissue also provide diagnostic value, with more advanced techniques deriving luminal water imaging and hybrid-multidimensional MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, primarily using a modified Tofts model, also shows independent discriminatory value. Finally, quantitative size and shape features can be combined with the aforementioned techniques and be further refined using radiomics, texture analysis, and artificial intelligence. Which technique will ultimately find widespread clinical use will depend on validation across a myriad of platforms use-cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Nandita M deSouza
- The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andriy Fedorov
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Fiona M Fennessy
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Stephan E Maier
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrei Purysko
- Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Amita Shukla-Dave
- Departments of Medical Physics and Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Brondani Torri G, Antune Pereira P, Piovesan Wiethan C, Mesquita Y, Mirshahvalad SA, Veit-Haibach P, Ghai S, Metser U, Altmayer S, Dias AB. Comparison of Multiparametric MRI and the Combination of PSMA Plus MRI for the Intraprostatic Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2024; 49:e375-e382. [PMID: 38776063 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000005265] [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: 07/06/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and the combination of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET plus MRI (PSMA + MRI) for detecting intraprostatic clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS Relevant databases were searched through November 2023. Only studies directly comparing mpMRI and PSMA + MRI (PET/MRI or PET/CT + mpMRI) were included. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for each approach. RESULTS A total of 19 studies were included. On a patient-level analysis, PSMA + MRI had higher sensitivity (9 studies) than mpMRI for csPCa detection (96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 92%, 98%] vs 89% [95% CI: 81%, 94%]; P = 0.04). The patient-level specificity (4 studies) of PSMA + MRI was 55% (95% CI: 31%-76%) compared with 50% (95% CI: 44%-57%) of mpMRI ( P = 0.67). Region-level sensitivity (10 studies) was 85% (95% CI: 74%-92%) for PSMA + MRI and 71% (95% CI: 58%-82%) for mpMRI ( P = 0.09), whereas specificity (4 studies) was 87% (95% CI: 76%-94%) and 90% (95% CI: 82%-95%), respectively ( P = 0.59). Lesion-level sensitivity and specificity were similar between modalities with pooled data from less than 4 studies. CONCLUSIONS PSMA + MRI had superior pooled sensitivity and similar specificity for the detection of csPCa compared with mpMRI in this meta-analysis of head-to-head studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Brondani Torri
- From the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul
| | - Pedro Antune Pereira
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| | - Camila Piovesan Wiethan
- From the Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul
| | - Yasmin Mesquita
- Division of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| | - Patrick Veit-Haibach
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| | - Sangeet Ghai
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| | - Ur Metser
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| | - Stephan Altmayer
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Adriano Basso Dias
- University Medical Imaging Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ma J, Yang Q, Ye X, Xu W, Chang Y, Chen R, Wang Y, Luo M, Lou Y, Yang X, Li D, Xu Y, He W, Cai M, Cao W, Ju G, Yin L, Wang J, Ren J, Ma Z, Zuo C, Ren S. Head-to-head comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of pretreatment patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2024; 34:4017-4037. [PMID: 37981590 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10436-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of pretreatment prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published before June 22, 2022. We assessed risk of bias and applicability by using QUADAS-2 tool. Data synthesis was performed with Stata 17.0 software, using the "midas" and "meqrlogit" packages. RESULTS We included 29 articles focusing on primary cancer detection, 18 articles about primary staging, and two articles containing them both. For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary PCa detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.90 and 0.84 (p<0.0001), and 0.66 and 0.60 (p <0.0001), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.79 and 0.78 (p <0.0001), and 0.84 and 0.82 (p <0.0001). For the per-patient analysis of PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary staging, sensitivities and specificities in extracapsular extension detection were 0.59 and 0.66 (p =0.005), and 0.79 and 0.76 (p =0.0074), and in seminal vesicle infiltration (SVI) detection they were 0.51 and 0.60 (p =0.0008), and 0.93 and 0.96 (p =0.0092). For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in lymph node metastasis (LNM) detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.68 and 0.46 (p <0.0001), and 0.91 and 0.90 (p =0.81), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.67 and 0.36 (p <0.0001), and 0.99 and 0.99 (p =0.18). CONCLUSION PSMA PET has higher diagnostic value than mpMRI in the detection of primary PCa. Regarding the primary staging, mpMRI has potential advantages in SVI detection, while PSMA PET has relative advantages in LNM detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT The integration of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET into the diagnostic pathway may be helpful for improving the accuracy of prostate cancer detection. However, further studies are needed to address the cost implications and evaluate its utility in specific patient populations or clinical scenarios. Moreover, we recommend the combination of PSMA PET and mpMRI for cancer staging. KEY POINTS • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET has higher sensitivity and specificity for primary tumor detection in prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET also has significantly better sensitivity and specificity for lymph node metastases of prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Multiparametric MRI has better accuracy for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle infiltration compared to ate-specific membrane antigen PET.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianglei Ma
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Qinqin Yang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Xiaofei Ye
- Department of Health Statistics, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Weidong Xu
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Yifan Chang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Rui Chen
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Ye Wang
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Mengting Luo
- College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Yihaoyun Lou
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Xuming Yang
- Department of Urology, Hengyang Central Hospital, Hengyang, 421001, Hu'nan, China
| | - Duocai Li
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Yusi Xu
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Wei He
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Minglei Cai
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Wanli Cao
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Guanqun Ju
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Lei Yin
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Junkai Wang
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Jizhong Ren
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Zifang Ma
- Department of Urology, Hengyang Central Hospital, Hengyang, 421001, Hu'nan, China.
| | - Changjing Zuo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| | - Shancheng Ren
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Evin D, Evinová A, Baranovičová E, Šarlinová M, Jurečeková J, Kaplán P, Poláček H, Halašová E, Dušenka R, Briš L, Brožová MK, Sivoňová MK. Integrative Metabolomic Analysis of Serum and Selected Serum Exosomal microRNA in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2024; 25:2630. [PMID: 38473877 DOI: 10.3390/ijms25052630] [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: 01/17/2024] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 02/22/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease due to the absence of effective therapies. A more comprehensive understanding of molecular events, encompassing the dysregulation of microRNAs (miRs) and metabolic reprogramming, holds the potential to unveil precise mechanisms underlying mCRPC. This study aims to assess the expression of selected serum exosomal miRs (miR-15a, miR-16, miR-19a-3p, miR-21, and miR-141a-3p) alongside serum metabolomic profiling and their correlation in patients with mCRPC and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Blood serum samples from mCRPC patients (n = 51) and BPH patients (n = 48) underwent metabolome analysis through 1H-NMR spectroscopy. The expression levels of serum exosomal miRs in mCRPC and BPH patients were evaluated using a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). The 1H-NMR metabolomics analysis revealed significant alterations in lactate, acetate, citrate, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs, including valine, leucine, and isoleucine) in mCRPC patients compared to BPH patients. MiR-15a, miR-16, miR-19a-3p, and miR-21 exhibited a downregulation of more than twofold in the mCRPC group. Significant correlations were predominantly observed between lactate, citrate, acetate, and miR-15a, miR-16, miR-19a-3p, and miR-21. The importance of integrating metabolome analysis of serum with selected serum exosomal miRs in mCRPC patients has been confirmed, suggesting their potential utility for distinguishing of mCRPC from BPH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Evin
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
- Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, University Hospital in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Andrea Evinová
- Biomedical Center Martin, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Eva Baranovičová
- Biomedical Center Martin, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Miroslava Šarlinová
- Biomedical Center Martin, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Jana Jurečeková
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Peter Kaplán
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Hubert Poláček
- Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, University Hospital in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Erika Halašová
- Biomedical Center Martin, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Róbert Dušenka
- Clinic of Urology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, University Hospital in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Lukáš Briš
- Clinic of Urology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, University Hospital in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Martina Knoško Brožová
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| | - Monika Kmeťová Sivoňová
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University in Bratislava, 03601 Martin, Slovakia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang YF, Lo CY, Chen LY, Chang CW, Huang YT, Huang YY, Huang YH. Comparing the Detection Performance Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2023; 48:e321-e331. [PMID: 37145456 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000004646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been promoted as an auxiliary diagnostic tool for prostate biopsy. However, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) including 68 Ga-PSMA-11, 18 F-DCFPyL, and 18 F-PSMA-1007 applied PET/CT imaging was an emerging diagnostic tool in prostate cancer patients for staging or posttreatment follow-up, even early detecting. Many studies have used PSMA PET for comparison with mpMRI to test the diagnostic ability for early prostate cancer. Unfortunately, these studies have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in diagnostic performance between PSMA PET and mpMRI for detecting and T staging localized prostatic tumors. METHODS This meta-analysis involved a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases. The pooling sensitivity and specificity of PSMA and mpMRI verified by pathological analysis were calculated and used to compare the differences between the 2 imaging tools. RESULTS Overall, 39 studies were included (3630 patients in total) from 2016 to 2022 in the current meta-analysis and found that the pooling sensitivity values for localized prostatic tumors and T staging T3a and T3b of PSMA PET were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.86), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.39-0.79), and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76), respectively, whereas those of mpMRI were found to be 0.84 (95% 0.78-0.89), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52-0.80), and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.73), respectively, without significant differences ( P > 0.05). However, in a subgroup analysis of radiotracer, the pooling sensitivity of 18 F-DCFPyL PET was higher than mpMRI (relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis found that whereas 18 F-DCFPyL PET was superior to mpMRI at detecting localized prostatic tumors, the detection performance of PSMA PET for localized prostatic tumors and T staging was comparable to that of mpMRI.
Collapse
|