Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance

被引:38
作者
Dieffenbacher, Svenja [1 ,2 ]
Nyarangi-Dix, Joanne [1 ]
Giganti, Francesco [3 ,4 ]
Bonekamp, David [2 ]
Kesch, Claudia [1 ,5 ]
Mueller-Wolf, Maya B. [2 ]
Schuetz, Viktoria [1 ]
Gasch, Claudia [1 ]
Hatiboglu, Gencay [1 ]
Hauffe, Marcus [1 ]
Stenzinger, Albrecht [6 ]
Duensing, Stefan [1 ]
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter [2 ]
Moore, Caroline M. [4 ,7 ]
Hohenfellner, Markus [1 ]
Radtke, Jan Philipp [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Heidelberg, Dept Urol, Heidelberg, Germany
[2] German Canc Res Ctr, Dept Radiol, Heidelberg, Germany
[3] Univ Coll London Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Radiol, London, England
[4] UCL, Div Surg & Intervent Sci, London, England
[5] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver Prostate Ctr, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[6] Heidelberg Univ, Inst Pathol, Heidelberg, Germany
[7] Univ Coll London Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Urol, London, England
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2021年 / 7卷 / 01期
关键词
Prostate cancer; Active surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy; TARGETED BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; PI-RADS; MRI; MANAGEMENT; REDUCTION; PATTERNS; UPDATE; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.001
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Contemporary selection criteria for men with prostate cancer (PC) suitable for active surveillance (AS) are unsatisfactory, leading to high disqualification rates based on tumor misclassification. Conventional biopsy protocols are based on standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy. Objective: To assess the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/TRUS fusion biopsy over 4-yr follow-up in men on AS for low-risk PC. Design, setting, and participants: Between 2010 and 2018, a total of 273 men were included. Of them, 157 men with initial 12-core TRUS biopsy and 116 with initial MRI/ TRUS fusion biopsy were followed by systematic and targeted transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies based on Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance criteria. MRI from follow-up MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy was assessed using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: AS-disqualification rates for patients on AS initially diagnosed by either 12-core TRUS biopsy or by MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, and regression analyses. We also analyzed the influence of negative primary MRI and PRECISE scoring to predict AS disqualification using Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results and limitations: Of men diagnosed by 12-core TRUS biopsy, 59% were disqua-lified from AS based on the results of subsequent MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. In the initial MRI fusion biopsy cohort, upgrading occurred significantly less frequently (19%, p < 0.001). ROC curve analyses demonstrated good discrimination for the PRECISE score with an area under the curve of 0.83. No men with a PRECISE score of 1 or 2 (demonstrating absence or downgrading of lesions in follow-up MRI) were disqualified from AS. In our cohort, a negative baseline MRI scan was not a predictor of nondisqua-lification from AS. Limitations include transperineal approach and extended systematic biopsies used with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy, which may not be representative of other centers Conclusions: MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies allow a reliable risk classification for patients who are candidates for AS. The application of the PRECISE scoring system demonstrated good discrimination. Patient summary: In this study, we investigated the value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsies for the assessment of active surveillance (AS) reliability using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation criteria. Standard TRUS biopsies lead to significant underestimation of prostate cancer. In contrast, MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies allowed for a more reliable risk classification. For appropriate inclusion into AS, men should receive either an initial or a confirmatory MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. (c) 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:102 / 110
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study [J].
Ahmed, Hashim U. ;
Bosaily, Ahmed El-Shater ;
Brown, Louise C. ;
Gabe, Rhian ;
Kaplan, Richard ;
Parmar, Mahesh K. ;
Collaco-Moraes, Yolanda ;
Ward, Katie ;
Hindley, Richard G. ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Kirkham, Alex P. ;
Oldroyd, Robert ;
Parker, Chris ;
Emberton, Mark .
LANCET, 2017, 389 (10071) :815-822
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, UROL ONCOL
[3]   ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 [J].
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Richenberg, Jonathan ;
Clements, Richard ;
Choyke, Peter ;
Verma, Sadhna ;
Villeirs, Geert ;
Rouviere, Olivier ;
Logager, Vibeke ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (04) :746-757
[4]   Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy [J].
Bloom, Jonathan B. ;
Hale, Graham R. ;
Gold, Samuel A. ;
Rayn, Kareem N. ;
Smith, Clayton ;
Mehralivand, Sherif ;
Czarniecki, Marcin ;
Valera, Vladimir ;
Wood, Bradford J. ;
Merino, Maria J. ;
Choyke, Peter L. ;
Parnes, Howard L. ;
Turkbey, Baris ;
Pinto, Peter A. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (01) :84-90
[5]   Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCE .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7379) :41-44
[6]   Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification? [J].
Bryant, Richard J. ;
Yang, Bob ;
Philippou, Yiannis ;
Lam, Karla ;
Obiakor, Maureen ;
Ayers, Jennifer ;
Chiocchia, Virginia ;
Gleeson, Fergus ;
MacPherson, Ruth ;
Verrill, Clare ;
Sooriakumaran, Prasanna ;
Hamdy, Freddie C. ;
Brewster, Simon F. .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 122 (05) :794-800
[7]   Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience [J].
Carter, H. Ballentine ;
Kettermann, Anna ;
Warlick, Christopher ;
Metter, E. Jeffrey ;
Landis, Patricia ;
Walsh, Patrick C. ;
Epstein, Jonathan I. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 178 (06) :2359-2364
[8]   Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013 [J].
Cooperberg, Matthew R. ;
Carroll, Peter R. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (01) :80-82
[9]   A Prospective Comparison of MRI-US Fused Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients on Active Surveillance [J].
Da Rosa, Michael R. ;
Milot, Laurent ;
Sugar, Linda ;
Vesprini, Danny ;
Chung, Hans ;
Loblaw, Andrew ;
Pond, Gregory R. ;
Klotz, Laurence ;
Haider, Masoom A. .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 41 (01) :220-225
[10]   Cost-effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging and MR-guided Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy in Diagnosing Prostate Cancer: A Modelling Study from a Health Care Perspective [J].
de Rooij, Maarten ;
Crienen, Simone ;
Witjes, J. Alfred ;
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Rovers, Maroeska M. ;
Grutters, Janneke P. C. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 66 (03) :430-436