Beam distortion due to gold fiducial markers during salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in the prostate

Safety and efficacy of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer in the presence of gold fiducial markers

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of ultrasound prostate ablation for radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) in the presence of gold fiducial markers has not been previously reported.

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety, functional, and early-stage oncological outcomes for patients with gold fiducial markers undergoing salvage magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (sTULSA) for radiorecurrent PCa.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data were acquired from an ethics-approved, single-center phase-1 study. Eight patients with 18 total gold fiducial markers inside the planned treatment volume were identified. MRI controls were performed at three and 12 months, followed by PSMA-PET-CT imaging and biopsies at 12 months. A control cohort of 13 patients who underwent sTULSA without markers were also identified for safety profile comparison. Adverse events were reported using the Clavien-Dindo classification, and questionnaires including EPIC-26, IPSS, and IIEF-5 were collected.

RESULTS

Of 18 markers, 2 (11%) were directly responsible for poor ultrasound penetration. However, there were no local recurrences at 12 months. PSA, prostate volume, and non-perfused volume all decreased over time. At 12 months, 11/18 (61%) of fiducial markers had disappeared via sloughing. The adverse event profile was similar between both patient cohorts, and when controlled for ablation type, no statistical difference in functional outcomes between the two cohorts was observed.

CONCLUSION

Patients with radiorecurrent PCa with intraprostatic gold fiducial markers can be successfully treated with TULSA. The early-stage efficacy of sTULSA for patients with intraprostatic gold markers is encouraging and the safety profile is unaffected by marker presence.

Fiducial markers and their impact on ablation outcome for patients treated with MR-guided transurethral ablation (TULSA): a retrospective technical analysis

OBJECTIVES

Fiducial markers improve accuracy in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). However, many patients recur after EBRT necessitating additional treatment, such as MR-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA). Residual markers may compromise TULSA through ultrasound field distortions and generation of local susceptibility artifacts. The objective was to investigate how markers affect the ablation outcome during clinical TULSA treatments.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on nine patients with radiorecurrent PCa and residual markers who received TULSA. The MR susceptibility artifact was quantified as a function of marker type, size and orientation, in particular for thermometry. The spatial distribution of markers inside the prostate was recorded, and the resulting impact on the thermal dose was measured. The thermal dose measurements were directly compared to the residual enhancing prostatic tissue observed on the immediate and control post-TULSA contrast enhanced (CE) image.

RESULTS

Successful thermal dose accumulation to the target boundary occurred for 14/20 (70%) of markers, confirmed with CE imaging. Gold markers situated simultaneously close to the urethra (≤12 mm) and far from the target boundary (≥13 mm) reduced the ultrasound depth of heating. Nitinol markers produced large, hypointense artifacts that disrupted thermometry and compromised treatment. Artifacts from gold markers were less pronounced, but when located near the target boundary, also affected treatment.

CONCLUSION

Marker composition, orientation and location inside the prostate can all potentially impact treatment outcome. Proper patient selection through detailed MRI screening is critical to ensure successful radiorecurrent PCa treatment outcomes with TULSA.

Prostatic calcifications: Quantifying occurrence, radiodensity, and spatial distribution in prostate cancer patients

•

Intraprostatic calcifications are under-recognized and under-reported in imaging.

•

Intraprostatic calcifications are common in patients with prostate cancer.

•

They commonly occur within tumors or in the vicinity of tumors.

Background

To evaluate the prevalence, density, and distribution of prostate calcification in patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

Patients who underwent both Gallium-68 PSMA PET/CT and MRI of the prostate over the course of a year were selected for analysis. The CT images with visible calcifications within the prostate were included and calcifications automatically isolated using a threshold of 130 HU. The corresponding multiparametric MRI was assessed and the peripheral zone, transition zone, MRI-visible tumor, and urethra manually contoured. The contoured MRI and CT images were registered using rigid registration, and calcifications mapped automatically to the MRI contours.

Results

A total of 85 men (age range 50–88, mean 69 years, standard deviation 7.2 years) were assessed. The mean serum Prostate Specific Antigen PSA was 16.7, range 0.12 to 94.4. Most patients had intermediate-risk disease (68%; Gleason grade group 2 and 3), 26% had high-risk disease (Gleason grade group 4 and 5), and 6% had low-risk disease (Gleason grade group 1). Forty-six patients out of 85 (54%) had intraprostatic calcification. Calcification occurred more in transition zone than the peripheral zone (65% vs. 35%). The mean density of the calcification was 227 HU (min 133, max 1,966 HU). In 12 patients, the calcification was within an MRI-visible tumor, in 24 patients, there were calcifications within a 9 mm distance of the tumor border, and in 9 patients, there were calcifications located between the urethra and tumor.

Conclusions

Calcifications are common in patients with prostate cancer. Their density and location may make them a significant consideration when planning treatment or retreatment with some types of minimally invasive therapy.

Transurethral ultrasound therapy of the prostate in the presence of calcifications: A simulation study

PURPOSE

Transurethral ultrasound therapy is an investigational treatment modality which could potentially be used for the localized treatment of prostate cancer. One of the limiting factors of this therapy is prostatic calcifications. These attenuate and reflect ultrasound and thus reduce the efficacy of the heating. The aim of this study is to investigate how prostatic calcifications affect therapeutic efficacy, and to identify the best sonication strategy when calcifications are present.

METHODS

Realistic computational models were used on clinical patient data in order to simulate different therapeutic situations with naturally occurring calcifications as well as artificial calcifications of different sizes (1-10 mm) and distances (5-15 mm). Furthermore, different sonication strategies were tested in order to deliver therapy to the untreated tissue regions behind the calcifications.

RESULTS

The presence of calcifications in front of the ultrasound field was found to increase the peak pressure by 100% on average while the maximum temperature only rose by 9% during a 20-s sonication. Losses in ultrasound energy were due to the relatively large acoustic impedance mismatch between the prostate tissue and the calcifications (1.63 vs 3.20 MRayl) and high attenuation coefficient (0.78 vs 2.64 dB/MHz^1.1 /cm), which together left untreated tissue regions behind the calcifications. In addition, elevated temperatures were seen in the region between the transducer and the calcifications. Lower sonication frequencies (1-4 MHz) were not able to penetrate through the calcifications effectively, but longer sonication durations (20-60 s) with selective transducer elements were effective in treating the tissue regions behind the calcifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostatic calcifications limit the reach of therapeutic ultrasound treatment due to reflections and attenuation. The tissue regions behind the calcifications can possibly be treated using longer sonication durations combined with proper transducer element selection. However, caution should be taken with calcifications located close to sensitive organs such as the urethra, bladder neck, or rectal wall.

Experimental study of beam distortion due to fiducial markers during salvage HIFU in the prostate

Background

Prostate cancer is frequently treated using external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Prior to therapy, the prostate is commonly implanted with a small number of permanent fiducial markers used to monitor the position of the prostate during therapy. In the case of local cancer recurrence, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) provides a non-invasive salvage treatment option. However, the impact of the fiducial markers on HIFU treatment has not been thoroughly studied to date. The objective of this study was to experimentally investigate the effect of a single EBRT fiducial marker on the efficacy of HIFU treatment delivery using a tissue-mimicking material (TMM).

Methods

A TMM with the acoustic properties of the prostate was developed based on a polyacrylamide hydrogel containing bovine serum albumin. Each phantom was implanted with a cylindrical fiducial marker and then sonicated using a 3.3 MHz focused bowl HIFU transducer. Two sets of experiments were performed. In the first, a single lesion was created at different positions along either the anteroposterior or left-right axes relative to the marker. In the second, a larger ablation volume was created by raster scanning. The size and position of the ablated volume were assessed using a millimetre grid overlaid on the phantom.

Results

The impact of the marker on the position and size of the HIFU lesion was significant when the transducer focus was positioned within 7 mm anteriorly, 18 mm posteriorly or within 3 mm laterally of the marker. Beyond this, the generated lesion was not affected. When the focus was anterior to the marker, the lesion increased in size due to reflections. When the focus was posterior, the lesion decreased in size or was not present due to shadowing.

Conclusions

The presence of an EBRT fiducial marker may result in an undertreated region beyond the marker due to reduced energy arriving at the focus, and an overtreated region in front of the marker due to reflections. Depending on the position of the targeted regions and the distribution of the markers, both effects may be undesirable and reduce treatment efficacy. Further work is necessary to investigate whether these results indicate the necessity to reconsider patient selection and treatment planning for prostate salvage HIFU after failed EBRT.