An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients

The role of diagnostic ultrasound imaging for patients with known prostate cancer within an active surveillance pathway: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) within active surveillance of prostate cancer programmes is identified by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE guideline NG 131 2019) as having a role for monitoring disease. The widespread demands on mpMRI capacity may limit its use in surveillance. It is therefore timely to review the options that modern ultrasound imaging present to this cohort of patients in the monitoring of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between April and September 2020, 10 databases were searched to recruit studies for the review. Three reviewers evaluated the publications for inclusion. Characteristics including the inclusion criteria for the study cohort, how disease was determined, identification of disease progression, and the modality and mode of imaging used were reviewed. Given the paucity of full text articles, a meta-analysis was not possible. A narrative review was undertaken.

RESULTS

In total, 12 studies, utilising the range of ultrasound parameters of B-mode, micro-ultrasound, colour Doppler, contrast ultrasound and elastography were included. The review demonstrated that micro-ultrasound offers promise as an imaging tool comparable with mpMRI. However, this is an emerging technology with limited availability. Analysis of the data further demonstrated that by combining the diagnostic features provided by multiple modes reviewed, ultrasound has a role in the diagnostic imaging of patients on active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Providing a multiparametric approach is utilised, stable ultrasound findings may allow for increased intervals between biopsy for men on surveillance. The advent of micro-US offers promise as an imaging modality within an active surveillance pathway but requires further verification.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

CONTEXT

There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Diagnostic performance of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies vs. systematic prostate biopsies in biopsy-naïve, previous negative biopsy patients and men undergoing active surveillance

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the detection rate of overall PCa and csPCa, and the clinical impact of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (FUSION-TB) compared to TRUS guided systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with different biopsy settings.

METHODS

Three hundred and five patients were submitted to FUSION-TB, divided into three groups: biopsy naïve patients, previous negative biopsies and patients under active surveillance (AS). All patients had a single suspicious index lesion at mpMRI. Within these groups, we enrolled men underwent both to FUSION-TB and SB in the same session. Overall detection rate of PCa and csPCa for the two biopsy methods were compared separately between the three groups of patients.

RESULTS

No differences were observed between the three groups concerning clinical and radiological characteristics. We found no differences in terms of overall PCa detection (66% vs. 63.8%, P=0.617) and csPCa detection (56.4% vs. 51.1%; P=0.225) concerning biopsy naïve patients. In patients previously submitted to a negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed higher detection rate of csPCa compared to SB alone (41,3% vs. 27% respectively, P=0.038). In patients under AS, no differences were observed between FUSION-TB and SB in terms of overall PCa (50% vs. 73.1%) and csPCa (30.8% vs. 26.9%, respectively; P=0.705) detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in men with previously negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed significantly higher diagnostic performance for clinically significant PCa as compared to SB. Combination of FUSION-TB and SB should be recommended in AS population to offer higher chance of csPCa diagnosis.

Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer

Active surveillance is a good management option for some men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we examine the evidence for several topics related to active surveillance. We examine: (1) which patients should be eligible for active surveillance, (2) what follow-up (monitoring) protocols should be used for men on surveillance, (3) what is the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on surveillance, and (4) what is the prognosis for men who choose surveillance compared to radical treatment. In many instances, the evidence is evolving or lacking. In these situations, we highlight the limitations of the data.