Dataset Information

Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

ABSTRACT: Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 128 men on AS. The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2. There was no difference in GG ≥2 detection between the imaging techniques (PRI-MUS score ≥3: 33/34, 98%; PI-RADS score ≥3: 29/34, 85%; p = 0.22). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for GG ≥2 detection were 97%, 32%, 34%, and 97% with PRI-MUS ≥3, and 85%, 53%, 40%, and 91% with PI-RADS ≥3, respectively. Upgrading to GG ≥2 was more likely for PRI-MUS ≥3 than for PRI-MUS ≤2 scores (odds ratio 15.5, 95% confidence interval 2.0-118.5). A limitation is the lack of blinding to the MRI results. In conclusion, detection of upgrading to GG ≥2 during AS appears similar when using micro-ultrasound or MRI to inform prostate biopsy.

Patient summary

We looked at a novel imaging technology, micro-ultrasound, in patients undergoing biopsy during active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that micro-ultrasound can detect prostate cancer that may require treatment at a similar rate to that with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.

SUBMITTER: Albers P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9618766 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Albers Patrick P Wang Betty B Broomfield Stacey S Medina Martín Anaïs A Fung Christopher C Kinnaird Adam A

European urology open science 20221025

Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 128 men on AS. The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2. There was no difference in GG ≥2 detection between the imaging techniques (PRI-MUS score ≥3: 33/34, 98%; PI-RADS score ≥3 ...[more]

PMID: 36325366

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTransrectal, ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy often fails to disclose the severity of underlying pathologic findings for prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy may improve the characterization of prostate pathologic results, but few studies have examined its use for the decision to enter active surveillance.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether confirmatory biopsy findings by MRI guidance are associated with the risk of pathologic disease upgrading among patients with prostate cancer during active surveillance.Design, settings, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used prospectively obtained registry data from 332 men with prostate cancer of Gleason grade group (GG) 2 or lower who were referred for active surveillance at a large academic medical center from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2017.ExposuresAll confirmatory and follow-up biopsies were performed using MRI guidance with an MRI-ultrasonography fusion device. Patients underwent repeated MRI-guided biopsies every 12 to 24 months. At follow-up sessions, in addition to obtaining systematic samples, lesions seen on MRI were targeted and foci of low-grade prostate cancer were obtained again using tracking technology. Active surveillance was terminated with detection of at least GG3 disease or receipt of treatment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was upgrading to at least GG3 disease during active surveillance. Secondary outcomes were the associations of MRI lesion grade, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, and biopsy method (targeted, systematic, or tracked) with the primary outcome.ResultsOf 332 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [7.6] years), 39 (11.7%) upgraded to at least GG3 disease during follow-up. The incidence of upgrading was 7.9% (9 of 114) when the confirmatory biopsy finding was normal, 11.4% (20 of 175) when the finding showed GG1 disease, and 23.3% (10 of 43) when the finding was GG2 disease (P = .03). Men with GG2 disease were almost 8 times more likely to upgrade during surveillance compared with those with normal findings but only among those with low PSA density (hazard ratio [HR], 7.82; 95% CI, 2.29-26.68). A PSA density of at least 0.15 ng/mL/mL was associated with increased risk of upgrading among patients with normal findings (HR, 7.21; 95% CI, 1.98-26.24) or GG1 disease (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.16 to 7.03) on confirmatory biopsy. A total of 46% of pathologic disease upgrades would have been missed if only the targeted biopsy was performed and 65% of disease upgrades were detected only with tracked biopsy.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that confirmatory biopsy with MRI guidance is significantly associated with future disease upgrading of prostate cancer, especially when combined with PSA density, and should be considered as an appropriate entry point for active surveillance. Systematic and targeted biopsies were additive in detection of clinically significant cancers. Repeated biopsy at sites at which findings were previously abnormal (tracking biopsy) facilitated detection of cancers not suitable for continued active surveillance.

Project description:Active surveillance (AS) is the primary strategy for managing patients with low or favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa). Identifying patients who may benefit from AS relies on unpleasant prostate biopsies, which entail the risk of bleeding and infection. In the current study, we aimed to develop a radiomics model based on prostate magnetic resonance images to identify AS candidates non-invasively. A total of 956 PCa patients with complete biopsy reports from six hospitals were included in the current multicenter retrospective study. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were used as reference standards to determine the AS candidacy. To discriminate between AS and non-AS candidates, five radiomics models (i.e., eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) AS classifier (XGB-AS), logistic regression (LR) AS classifier, random forest (RF) AS classifier, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) AS classifier, and decision tree (DT) AS classifier) were developed and externally validated using a three-fold cross-center validation based on five classifiers: XGBoost, LR, RF, AdaBoost, and DT. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SEN), and specificity (SPE) were calculated to evaluate the performance of these models. XGB-AS exhibited an average of AUC of 0.803, ACC of 0.693, SEN of 0.668, and SPE of 0.841, showing a better comprehensive performance than those of the other included radiomic models. Additionally, the XGB-AS model also presented a promising performance for identifying AS candidates from the intermediate-risk cases and the ambiguous cases with diagnostic discordance between the NCCN guidelines and the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System assessment. These results suggest that the XGB-AS model has the potential to help identify patients who are suitable for AS and allow non-invasive monitoring of patients on AS, thereby reducing the number of annual biopsies and the associated risks of bleeding and infection.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is of increasing interest, existing data are derived from small cohorts.ObjectiveWe describe clinical, histological, and radiological outcomes from an established AS programme, where protocol-based biopsies were omitted in favour of MRI-led monitoring.Design, setting, and participantsData on 672 men enrolled in AS between August 2004 and November 2017 (inclusion criteria: Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 localised prostate cancer, presenting prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml, and baseline mpMRI) were collected from the University College London Hospital (UCLH) database.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPrimary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS; event defined as prostate cancer treatment, transition to watchful waiting, or death) and treatment-free survival (TFS). Secondary outcomes included rates of all-cause or prostate cancer-related mortality, metastasis, and upgrading to Gleason ≥4 + 3. Data on radiological and histological progression were also collected.Results and limitationsMore than 3800 person-years (py) of follow-up were accrued (median: 58 mo; interquartile range 37-82 mo). Approximately 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.0-87.6) and 71.8% (95% CI: 68.2-75.6) of patients remained on AS at 3 and 5 yr, respectively. EFS and TFS were lower in those with MRI-visible (Likert 4-5) disease or secondary Gleason pattern 4 at baseline (log-rank test; p < 0.001). In total, 216 men were treated. There were 24 deaths, none of which was prostate cancer related (6.3/1000 py; 95% CI: 4.1-9.5). Metastases developed in eight men (2.1 events/1000 py; 95% CI: 1.0-4.3), whereas 27 men upgraded to Gleason ≥4 + 3 on follow-up biopsy (7.7 events/1000 py; 95% CI: 5.2-11.3).ConclusionsThe rates of discontinuation, mortality, and metastasis in MRI-led surveillance are comparable with those of standard AS. MRI-visible disease and/or secondary Gleason grade 4 at baseline are associated with a greater likelihood of moving to active treatment at 5 yr. Further research will concentrate on optimising imaging intervals according to baseline risk.Patient summaryIn this report, we looked at the outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based surveillance for prostate cancer in a UK cohort. We found that this strategy could allow routine biopsies to be avoided. Secondary Gleason pattern 4 and MRI visibility are associated with increased rates of treatment. We conclude that MRI-based surveillance should be considered for the monitoring of small prostate tumours.

Dataset Information

Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Patient summary

Publications

Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets