1
|
Trecarten S, Sunnapwar AG, Clarke GD, Liss MA. Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Update and future directions. Adv Cancer Res 2024; 161:71-118. [PMID: 39032957 DOI: 10.1016/bs.acr.2024.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW In recent decades, there has been an increasing role for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update and outline future directions for the role of MRI in the detection of csPC. RECENT FINDINGS In diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer pre-biopsy, advances include our understanding of MRI-targeted biopsy, the role of biparametric MRI (non-contrast) and changing indications, for example the role of MRI in screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, the role of MRI in identifying csPC is maturing, with emphasis on standardization of MRI reporting in active surveillance (PRECISE), clinical staging (EPE grading, MET-RADS-P) and recurrent disease (PI-RR, PI-FAB). Future directions of prostate MRI in detecting csPC include quality improvement, artificial intelligence and radiomics, positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI and MRI-directed therapy. SUMMARY The utility of MRI in detecting csPC has been demonstrated in many clinical scenarios, initially from simply diagnosing csPC pre-biopsy, now to screening, active surveillance, clinical staging, and detection of recurrent disease. Continued efforts should be undertaken not only to emphasize the reporting of prostate MRI quality, but to standardize reporting according to the appropriate clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaun Trecarten
- Department of Urology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States
| | - Abhijit G Sunnapwar
- Department of Radiology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States
| | - Geoffrey D Clarke
- Department of Radiology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States
| | - Michael A Liss
- Department of Urology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Belue MJ, Blake Z, Yilmaz EC, Lin Y, Harmon SA, Nemirovsky DR, Enders JJ, Kenigsberg AP, Mendhiratta N, Rothberg M, Toubaji A, Merino MJ, Gurram S, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. Is prostatic adenocarcinoma with cribriform architecture more difficult to detect on prostate MRI? Prostate 2023; 83:1519-1528. [PMID: 37622756 PMCID: PMC10840859 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cribriform (CBFM) pattern on prostate biopsy has been implicated as a predictor for high-risk features, potentially leading to adverse outcomes after definitive treatment. This study aims to investigate whether the CBFM pattern containing prostate cancers (PCa) were associated with false negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and determine the association between MRI and histopathological disease burden. METHODS Patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), combined 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic (SB) and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy were retrospectively queried for the presence of CBFM pattern at biopsy. Biopsy cores and lesions were categorized as follows: C0 = benign, C1 = PCa with no CBFM pattern, C2 = PCa with CBFM pattern. Correlation between cancer core length (CCL) and measured MRI lesion dimension were assessed using a modified Pearson correlation test for clustered data. Differences between the biopsy core groups were assessed with the Wilcoxon-signed rank test with clustering. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2022, a total of 131 consecutive patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy and pre-biopsy mpMRI were included. Clinical feature analysis included 1572 systematic biopsy cores (1149 C0, 272 C1, 151 C2) and 736 MRI-targeted biopsy cores (253 C0, 272 C1, 211 C2). Of the 131 patients with confirmed CBFM pathology, targeted biopsy (TBx) alone identified CBFM in 76.3% (100/131) of patients and detected PCa in 97.7% (128/131) patients. SBx biopsy alone detected CBFM in 61.1% (80/131) of patients and PCa in 90.8% (119/131) patients. TBx and SBx had equivalent detection in patients with smaller prostates (p = 0.045). For both PCa lesion groups there was a positive and significant correlation between maximum MRI lesion dimension and CCL (C1 lesions: p < 0.01, C2 lesions: p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in CCL between C1 and C2 lesions for T2 scores of 3 and 5 (p ≤ 0.01, p ≤ 0.01, respectively) and PI-RADS 5 lesions (p ≤ 0.01), with C2 lesions having larger CCL, despite no significant difference in MRI lesion dimension. CONCLUSIONS The extent of disease for CBFM-containing tumors is difficult to capture on mpMRI. When comparing MRI lesions of similar dimensions and PIRADS scores, CBFM-containing tumors appear to have larger cancer yield on biopsy. Proper staging and planning of therapeutic interventions is reliant on accurate mpMRI estimation. Special considerations should be taken for patients with CBFM pattern on prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mason J. Belue
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Zoë Blake
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Enis C. Yilmaz
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Yue Lin
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Stephanie A. Harmon
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Daniel R. Nemirovsky
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Jacob J. Enders
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Alexander P. Kenigsberg
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Neil Mendhiratta
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael Rothberg
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Antoun Toubaji
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Maria J. Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Sandeep Gurram
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Bradford J. Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Peter L. Choyke
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Peter A. Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|