Prostate cancer: in-bore magnetic resonance guided biopsies at active surveillance inclusion improve selection of patients for active treatment

Abstract

Background

Active surveillance (AS) of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is an accepted alternative to active treatment. However, the conventional diagnostic trans-rectal ultrasound guided biopsies (TRUS-bx) underestimate PCa aggressiveness in almost half of the cases, when compared with the surgical specimen.

Purpose

To investigate if additional multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and MRI-guided in-bore biopsies (MRGB) at AS inclusion would improve selection of patients for active treatment.

Material and Methods

All patients enrolled in AS programs at two Danish centers, from October 2014 to January 2016, were offered an mpMRI 8–12 weeks after the initial diagnostic TRUS-bx. Candidates had low-risk disease (PSA < 10 ng/mL, <cT2b, Gleason score [GS] < 7). Prostate lesions were scored on the five-point PIRADS scale (version 1 and 2). MRGB were performed on PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions. Significant cancer was defined as GS > 6 or GS 6 (3 + 3) lesions with ≥ 6 mm maximal cancer core length (MCCL).

Results

A total of 78 patients were included and in 21 patients a total of 22 PIRADS-score 4 or 5 lesions were detected. MRGB pathology revealed that 17 (81%) of these and 22% of the entire AS population harbored significant cancers at AS inclusion. In eight (38%) cases, the GS was upgraded. Also, nine patients (43%) had GS 6 (3 + 3) foci with MCCL ≥ 6 mm.

Conclusion

In an AS cohort based on TRUS and TRUS-bx diagnostic strategies, supplemental mpMRI and in-bore MRGB were able to efficiently reclassify a substantial number of patients as candidates for immediate active treatment.

Keywords

Prostate primary neoplasms MR diffusion/perfusion biopsy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tavangar

Razi

Mashayekhi

. Correlation between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason gradings of 111 cases with prostatic adenocarcinoma. Urol J 2004; 1: 246–249.

Mottet

Bellmunt

Bolla

et al.

EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618–629.

Guo

Cai

Fan

et al.

Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18: 221–228.

Hoeks

CMA

Somford

van Oort

et al.

Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance–guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 2014; 49: 165–172.

Chang

Natarajan

et al.

Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?

J Urol 2014; 192: 385–390.

Marliere

Puech

Benkirane

et al.

The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 2014; 32: 951–958.

Barentsz

Richenberg

Clements

et al.

ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.

Vargas

Hötker

Goldman

et al.

Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 1606–1612.

Epstein

Allsbrook

Amin

et al.

The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.

10.

Ahmed

Carter

et al.

Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186: 458–464.

11.

D’Amico

Moul

Carroll

et al.

Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2163–2172.

12.

Thomsen

Berg

Iversen

et al.

Poor association between the progression criteria in active surveillance and subsequent histopathological findings following radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol 2015; 49: 354–359.

13.

Barzell

Melamed

Cathcart

et al.

Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 762–767.

14.

Portalez

Mozer

Cornud

et al.

Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 986–996.

15.

Delongchamps

Rouanne

Flam

et al.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1411–1418.

16.

Ahmed

El-Shater Bosaily

Brown

et al.

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–822.

17.

Bul

van den Bergh

RCN

Rannikko

et al.

Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 370–377.

18.

Epstein

Walsh

Carmichael

et al.

Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (Stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368–374.

19.

Epstein

Sanderson

Carter

et al.

Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005; 66: 356–360.

20.

Stamey

Freiha

McNeal

et al.

Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 933–938.

21.

Ahmed

Kirkham

Arya

et al.

Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?

Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009; 6: 197–206.

22.

Wolters

Roobol

van Leeuwen

et al.

A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121–125.

23.

Epstein

Zelefsky

Sjoberg

et al.

A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 428–435.

24.

Dall’Era

Klotz

. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 1–6.

25.

van den Bergh

RCN

Roemeling

Roobol

et al.

Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1472–1477.

26.

Cole

Morgan

Spratt

et al.

Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol 2016; 196: 405–411.

27.

Huang

Kong

Zhou

et al.

Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38: 1096–1101.

28.

Hambrock

Hoeks

Hulsbergen-van de Kaa

et al.

Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 177–184.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB