Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 11/2020

Open Access 01-11-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Urogenital

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study

Authors: T. Ullrich, C. Arsov, M. Quentin, F. Mones, A. C. Westphalen, D. Mally, A. Hiester, P. Albers, G. Antoch, L. Schimmöller

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the ability of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) of the prostate to exclude prostate cancer (PCa) progression during monitoring patients on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients on AS with mp-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI) at 3T were initially enrolled. Fifty-five received follow-up mp-MRI after a minimum interval of 12 months and subsequent targeted MR/US fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) plus concurrent systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-GB) biopsy as reference standard. Primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the follow-up mp-MRI to exclude histopathologic tumor progression using PRECISE recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, Gleason score (GS) upgrades, and comparison of biopsy method.

Results

Of 55 patients, 29 (53%) had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. All 29 patients showed a tumor progression on follow-up mp-MRI. Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) displayed signs of tumor progression, but had stable GS on re-biopsy. None of the 11 patients (20%) without signs of progression on follow-up mp-MRI had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. The NPV was 100%, PPV was 66%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity 42%. FUS-GB resulted in GS upgrade significantly more often (n = 28; 51%) compared with TRUS-GB (n = 12; 22%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

(Follow-up) Mp-MRI can reliably exclude PCa progression in patients on AS. Standard serial re-biopsies might be waived if follow-up mp-MRIs are stable. Over 60% of patients with signs of tumor progression on mp-MRI during AS had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. Targeted re-biopsies should be performed if cancer progression or higher-grade PCa is suspected on mp-MRI.

Key Points

• None of the patients with unsuspicious mp-MRI had a GS upgrade in re-biopsy and mp-MRI might replace serial biopsies in these cases
• More than 60% of patients with mp-MRI signs of tumor progression had subsequent Gleason score (GS) upgrades
• Targeted re-biopsies should be performed in case of higher GS cancer suspicion on mp-MRI
Literature
1.
Fam MM, Yabes JG, Macleod LC et al (2019) Increasing utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. Urology 130:99–105CrossRef
2.
Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Taneja SS (2014) Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am 41:299–313CrossRef
3.
Sanda G, Cadeddu MA, Kirkby J et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 199:990–997CrossRef
4.
Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:630–642CrossRef
5.
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A et al (2016) A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 70:954–960CrossRef
6.
Bruinsma SM, Zhang L, Roobol MJ et al (2018) The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date. BJU Int 121:737–744CrossRef
7.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822CrossRef
8.
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB et al (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70:846–853CrossRef
9.
Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2016) MRI-guided in-bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:92–99CrossRef
10.
Bryant RJ, Yang B, Philippou Y et al (2018) Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification? BJU Int 122:794–800CrossRef
11.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O et al (2013) Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268:144–152CrossRef
12.
Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A et al (2020) 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 Urol 77:311–317CrossRef
13.
Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L et al (2019) Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 75:300–309CrossRef
14.
15.
Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK et al (2015) Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 33:202.e1–202.e7CrossRef
16.
Curci NE, Lane BR, Shankar PR et al (2018) Integration and diagnostic accuracy of 3T nonendorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the context of active surveillance. Urology 116:137–143CrossRef
17.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M (2016) Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol 34:1249–1253
18.
Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S et al (2017) Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 197:632–639CrossRef
19.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636CrossRef
20.
Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 72:275–281CrossRef
21.
Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P et al (2017) Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations-a report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol 71:648–655CrossRef
22.
Ullrich T, Schimmöller L, Oymanns M et al (2018) Current utilization and acceptance of multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. A regional survey. Rofo 190:419–426CrossRef
23.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974CrossRef
24.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRef
25.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242CrossRef
26.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351CrossRef
27.
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) MRI-FIRST Investigators. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109CrossRef
28.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777CrossRef
29.
Felker ER, Wu J, Natarajan S et al (2016) Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value. J Urol 195:1421–1427CrossRef
30.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424CrossRef
31.
Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM et al (2017) The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol 71:174–180CrossRef
32.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1 c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374
33.
Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR et al (2016) Prostate cancer, version 1. 2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14:19–30CrossRef
34.
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D et al (2017) The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 198:575–582CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study
Authors
T. Ullrich
C. Arsov
M. Quentin
F. Mones
A. C. Westphalen
D. Mally
A. Hiester
P. Albers
G. Antoch
L. Schimmöller
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06997-1

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

European Radiology 11/2020 Go to the issue

Vascular-Interventional

Pelvic Trauma: factors predicting arterial hemorrhage and the role of Angiography and preperitoneal pelvic packing

Editorial

Carbon footprint of air travel to international radiology conferences: FOMO?

Head and Neck

3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane—validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements

Correction

Correction to: Prediction of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour grade with MR imaging features: added value of diffusion-weighted imaging

Chest

Early chest CT features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia: relationship to diagnosis and prognosis

Breast

Clip migration after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with the patient in the decubitus position