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.
KlotzLVespriniDSethukavalanP, et al.
Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.J Clin Oncol2015;
33: 272–U75.
2.
Da SilvaVCagiannosILavalléeLT, et al.
An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: active surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.Can Urol Assoc J2017;
11: 238.
3.
MerrielSWDHetheringtonLSeggieA, et al.
Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement.Bju Int2019;
124: 47–54.
4.
BruinsmaSMZhangLRoobolMJ, et al.
The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date.Bju Int2018;
121: 737–744.
5.
BrownLCAhmedHUFariaR, et al.
Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.Health Technol Assess2018;
22: 1–176.
6.
NICE. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management NICE guideline 131.
UK:
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019.
7.
EureGFanneyDLinJ, et al.
Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: a feasibility study. Can Urol Assoc J2019;
13: E70--E77.
8.
VargasHAHötkerAMGoldmanDA, 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 Radiol2016;
26: 1606–1612.
9.
BrangerNMaubonTTraumannM, et al. Is negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging really able to exclude significant prostate cancer? The real-life experience. 2016; 119: 449--445.
10.
KlotzLPondGLoblawA, et al.
Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up.Eur Urol2020;
77: 311–317.
11.
GlassASDall'EraMA.Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance.Bju Int2019;
124: 730–737.
HrubyGChooRKlotzL, et al.
The role of serial transrectal ultrasonography in a ‘watchful waiting' protocol for men with localized prostate cancer.Bju Int2001;
87: 643–647.
14.
MaffeiDPaciottiMDomanicoL, et al. Diagnostic performance of micro-ultrasound in patients under active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Suppl2019;
18: e3419.
15.
BevilacquaGMaffeiDPaciottiM, et al. Diagnostic performance of micro-ultrasound in a contemporary cohort of patients in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: a single-institutional experience. Eur Urol Suppl2019;
18: e3155--e3376.
16.
ZhangMWangRWuY, et al.
Micro-ultrasound imaging for accuracy of diagnosis in clinically significant prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol2019;
9: 1368.
17.
LockwoodGRTurnballDHChristopherDA, et al.
Beyond 30 MHz [applications of high-frequency ultrasound imaging. IEEE Eng Med Biol Magz1996;
15: 60–71.
18.
GhaiSEureGFradetV, et al.
Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification.J Urol2016;
196: 562–569.
19.
BatesASKostakopoulosNAyersJ, et al.
A narrative overview of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs2020;
36: 151045.
20.
IremashviliVManoharanMKavaBR, et al.
Predictive models and risk of biopsy progression in active surveillance patients. Urol Oncol2017;
35: 37.e1–e8.
21.
StaermanF.The utility of 29 MHz high resolution micro-ultrasound and mpMRI in the management of Gleason six prostate cancer with active surveillance. Eur Urol, Suppl2019;
18: e3502.
22.
22. LughezzaniGPereiraJGSanchezA, et al. Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric MRI imaging for prostate cancer: a multicentre prospective analysis. 2020; 203: e806.
23.
PressBRosenkrantzABHuangR, et al.
The ultrasound characteristics of regions identified as suspicious by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predict the likelihood of clinically significant cancer on MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy. BJU Int2019;
123: 439–446.
24.
MischiMKuenenMPJBeerlageHP, et al.
Prostate cancer localization by contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging: results from a pilot study.Eur Urol, Suppl2014;
13: e1054--e1054a.
25.
BoehmKSalomonGBeyerB, et al.
Shear wave elastography for localization of prostate cancer lesions and assessment of elasticity thresholds: implications for targeted biopsies and active surveillance protocols. J Urol2015;
193: 794–800.
26.
PostemaAMischiMde la RosetteJ, et al.
Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.World J Urol2015;
33: 1651–1659.
27.
NIHR. PROSPERO. International prospective register of systematic reviews. National Institute of Health Research, www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (2020, accessed 7 February 2021).
28.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLoS Med2009;
6: e1000097.
29.
WhitingPFRutjesAWSWestwoodME, et al.
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.Ann Intern Med2011;
155: 529–536.
30.
Murciano-GoroffYRWolfsbergerLDParekhA, et al.
Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series. Radiat Oncol2014;
9: 200.
31.
PerezTVR.Initial results comparing high resolution micro-ultrasound with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol, Suppl2019;
18: e3499.
32.
EltemamyMLeapmanMCowanJ, et al.
Serial anatomic prostate ultrasound imaging during prostate cancer active surveillance. J Urol2016;
195.
33.
MaffeiDStaermanFPaciottiM, et al.
The utility of micro-ultrasound in patients under active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a PIRAS study extension. J Urol2020;
203: E339–E.
34.
SauvainJLRohmerPPapaveroR, et al.
Value of transrectal power Doppler sonography in the detection of low-risk prostate cancers.Diagn Intervent Imaging2013;
94: 60–67.
35.
ShojiSUkimuraODe Castro AbreuAL, et al.
Image-based monitoring of targeted biopsy-proven prostate cancer on active surveillance: 11-year experience. World J Urol2016;
34: 221–217.
36.
KoJLandisPCarterHB, et al.
1632 effect of intra-observer variation in prostate volume calculations in prostate cancer active surveillance group. J Urol2011;
185: e654–e5.
37.
WeissBEWeinAJMalkowiczSB, et al.
Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance?. Urol Oncol – Semin Original Investig2013;
31: 1436–1440.
38.
HarveyCJPilcherJRichenbergJ, et al.
Applications of transrectal ultrasound in prostate cancer.Br J Radiol2012;
85 Spec No 1: S3–17.
39.
FranielTTeichgraberUAsbachP, et al.
Prostate imaging – an update.RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren2015;
187: 751–759.
40.
PotdevinTCMoskalikAPFowlkesJB, et al.
Doppler quantitative measures by region to discriminate prostate cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol2001;
27: 1305–1310.
41.
QiTYSunHGLiNF, et al.
Value of three-section contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography in the detection of prostate cancer. J Clin Ultrasound2017;
45: 304–309.
ZhaiLRosenzweigSPalmeriML, et al.
Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging of human prostates: initial in vivo demonstration.Ultrasound Med Biol2012;
38: 50–61.
44.
PelzerAEHeinzelbeckerJWeißC, et al.
Real-time sonoelastography compared to magnetic resonance imaging using four different modalities at 3.0T in the detection of prostate cancer: Strength and weaknesses.Eur J Radiol2013;
82: 814–821.
45.
KasivisvanathanVRannikkoASBorghiM, et al.
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med2018;
378: 1767–1777
PopertRKumFMacaskillF, et al.
Our first month of delivering the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway within the limitations of COVID-19 using local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy. BJU Int2020; 126: 329--332.
