1
|
Abramczyk E, Nisar MU, Nguyen JK, Austin N, Ward RD, Weight C, Purysko AS. The Role of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Radioligand and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2025; 46:71-82. [PMID: 39580035 DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2024.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2024]
Abstract
A significant proportion of men with prostate cancer will experience biochemical recurrence (BCR), which is characterized by an elevation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after receiving treatment with curative intent. Imaging plays an important role in the management of patients with BCR. It can help identify sites of recurrence to determine the most appropriate management strategies, ranging from salvage treatment for local recurrences to systemic treatments for those with advanced, distant disease. PET/CT with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-radioligands is the most sensitive method for the detection of prostate cancer recurrence, with significantly higher cancer detection rates compared to conventional imaging techniques such as bone scan and computed tomography, even at lower PSA levels. Nevertheless, interpretation of PSMA PET/CT images can be challenging, particularly for the evaluation of local recurrence due to urinary activity that can mimic or mask the presence of cancer. Furthermore, some prostate cancers may not express PSMA and have false negative results. Multiparametric prostate MRI is an excellent method for the evaluation of local recurrence and can overcome some of the limitations of PSMA PET/CT. In this review, we discuss the role of imaging in managing patients with prostate cancer BCR and describe the potential benefits of MRI in the PSMA-radioligand imaging era, emphasizing the assessment of local recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Abramczyk
- Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Jane K Nguyen
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Nicholas Austin
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Abdominal Imaging Section, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Ryan D Ward
- Abdominal Imaging Section, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Christopher Weight
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Andrei S Purysko
- Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Nuclear Medicine Department, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Abdominal Imaging Section, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yang CH, Barbulescu DV, Marian L, Tung MC, Ou YC, Wu CH. High-Intensity Focus Ultrasound Ablation in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. J Pers Med 2024; 14:1163. [PMID: 39728075 DOI: 10.3390/jpm14121163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2024] [Revised: 11/25/2024] [Accepted: 12/06/2024] [Indexed: 12/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes vary significantly across risk groups. In early-stage localized PCa, the functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) can be severe, prompting increased interest in focal therapy, particularly High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU). This study is to summarize the current clinical trials of HIFU on PCa. Methods: We reviewed clinical trials from major databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE, to summarize the current research on HIFU in PCa treatment. Results: The literature highlights that HIFU may offer superior functional outcomes, particularly in continence recovery, compared to RP and radiation therapy. However, the oncological efficacy of HIFU remains inadequately supported by high-quality studies. Focal and hemigland ablations carry a risk of residual significant cancer, necessitating comprehensive patient counseling before treatment. For post-HIFU monitoring, we recommend 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with biopsy at 6 to 12 months to reassess the cancer status. Biochemical recurrence should be defined using the Phoenix criteria, and PSMA PET/CT can be considered for identifying recurrence in biopsy-negative patients. Conclusions: Whole-gland ablation is recommended as the general approach, as it provides a lower PSA nadir and avoids the higher positive biopsy rates observed after focal and hemigland ablation in both treated and untreated lobes. Future study designs should address heterogeneity, including variations in recurrence definitions and surveillance strategies, to provide more robust evidence for HIFU's oncological outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Che-Hsueh Yang
- Department of Urology, Changbing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua 505, Taiwan
| | | | - Lucian Marian
- Department of Urology, "Pius Brînzeu" County Emergency Clinical Hospital, 300723 Timisoara, Romania
| | - Min-Che Tung
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Tungs' Taichung MetroHarbor Hospital, Taichung 435, Taiwan
| | - Yen-Chuan Ou
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Tungs' Taichung MetroHarbor Hospital, Taichung 435, Taiwan
| | - Chi-Hsiang Wu
- Department of Urology, Changbing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua 505, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Creta M, Shariat SF, Marra G, Gontero P, Rossanese M, Morra S, Teoh J, Kishan AU, Karnes RJ, Longo N. Local salvage therapies in patients with radio-recurrent prostate cancer following external beam radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00883-3. [PMID: 39223232 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00883-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2024] [Revised: 07/28/2024] [Accepted: 08/15/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To date, radio-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) ranks as the fourth most common urological malignancy when considering the number of men with localized PCa who undergo radiation treatment and subsequently experience a biochemical recurrence. This systematic review aimed to summarize available evidence about the outcomes of local salvage strategies in patients with local PCa recurrence following primary external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS We conducted a comprehensive bibliographic search on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases in October 2023 to identify studies published in the last 20 years evaluating outcomes of local salvage procedures in patients with locally radio-recurrent PCa following EBRT. The meta-analysis was performed using ProMeta 3 software when two or more studies reported the same outcome. The effect size (ES) was estimated using rates reported with its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Overall, 28 studies (6 prospective and 22 retrospective) including 1544 patients were included in the review. Two-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 84.0% (95% CI: 67.0-93.0%), 69.0% (95% CI: 42.0-87.0%), 58.0% (95% CI: 43.0-71.0%), and 45% (95% CI: 38.0-52.0%), for patients undergoing brachytherapy (BT), EBRT, Cryotherapy and High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), respectively. After salvage prostatectomy, RFS ranged from 75% to 78.5% at a median follow-up ranging from 18 to 35 months. Estimates for severe gastrointestinal toxicity were 2%, 3%, 3%, 4%, and 11% following cryotherapy, BT, HIFU, EBRT, and salvage radical prostatectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent EBRT as primary treatment, prostate salvage re-irradiation through BT or EBRT represents the modality providing the best balance between efficacy and safety. Unfortunately, due to the low level of evidence, strong recommendations regarding the choice of any of these techniques cannot be made.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Massimiliano Creta
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy
| | | | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy
| | - Marta Rossanese
- Gaetano Barresi Department of Human and Paediatric Pathology, Urology Section, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Simone Morra
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
| | - Jeremy Teoh
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Nicola Longo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Patel KR, Rydzewski NR, Schott E, Cooley-Zgela T, Ning H, Cheng J, Salerno K, Huang EP, Lindenberg L, Mena E, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Citrin DE. A Phase 1 Trial of Salvage Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer After Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:1471-1480. [PMID: 38428681 PMCID: PMC11262986 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 03/03/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE NCT03253744 is a phase 1 trial with the primary objective to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of salvage stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with local prostate cancer recurrence after brachytherapy. Additional objectives included biochemical control and imaging response. METHODS AND MATERIALS This trial was initially designed to test 3 therapeutic dose levels (DLs): 40 Gy (DL1), 42.5 Gy (DL2), and 45 Gy (DL3) in 5 fractions. Intensity modulation was used to deliver the prescription dose to the magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based positron emission tomography imaging-defined gross tumor volume while simultaneously delivering 30 Gy to an elective volume defined by the prostate gland. This phase 1 trial followed a 3+3 design with a 3-patient expansion at the MTD. Toxicities were scored until trial completion at 2 years post-SBRT using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Escalation was halted if 2 dose limiting toxicities occurred, defined as any persistent (>4 days) grade 3 toxicity occurring within the first 3 weeks after SBRT or any grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) or grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity thereafter. RESULTS Between August 2018 and January 2023, 9 patients underwent salvage SBRT and were observed for a median of 22 months (Q1-Q3, 20-43 months). No grade 3 to 5 adverse events related to study treatment were observed; thus, no dose limiting toxicities occurred during the observation period. Escalation was halted by amendment given excellent biochemical control in DL1 and DL2 in the setting of a high incidence of clinically significant late grade 2 GU toxicity. Therefore, the MTD was considered 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions (DL2). One- and 2-year biochemical progression-free survival were 100% and 86%, representing a single patient in the trial cohort with biochemical failure (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir + 2.0) at 20 months posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS The MTD of salvage SBRT for the treatment of intraprostatic radiorecurrence after brachytherapy was 42.5 Gy in 5 fractions producing an 86% 2-year biochemical progression-free survival rate, with 1 poststudy failure at 20 months. The most frequent clinically significant toxicity was late grade 2 GU toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishnan R Patel
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - Nicholas R Rydzewski
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erica Schott
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Theresa Cooley-Zgela
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Holly Ning
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Jason Cheng
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Kilian Salerno
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Erich P Huang
- Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Liza Lindenberg
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Esther Mena
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Peter Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ekanger C, Helle SI, Reisæter L, Hysing LB, Kvåle R, Honoré A, Gravdal K, Pilskog S, Dahl O. Salvage Reirradiation for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Results From a Prospective Study With 7.2 Years of Follow-Up. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:1934-1942. [PMID: 38652872 PMCID: PMC11191049 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.01391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 01/24/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no well-established re-treatment options for local recurrence after primary curative radiation therapy for prostate cancer (PCa), as prospective studies with long-term follow-up are lacking. Here, we present results from a prospective study on focal salvage reirradiation with external-beam radiation therapy with a median follow-up of 7.2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS From 2013 to 2017, 38 patients with biopsy-proven locally recurrent PCa >2 years after previous treatment and absence of grade 2-3 toxicity from the first course of radiation were included. The treatment was 35 Gy in five fractions to the MRI-based target volume and 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy starting 3 months before radiation. The Phoenix criteria defined biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), and toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. RESULTS Median age was 70 years, and median time from primary radiation to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence was 83 months. The actuarial 2-year and 5-year bRFS were 81% (95% CI, 69 to 94) and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 74), respectively. The actuarial 5-year local recurrence-free survival was 93% (95% CI, 82 to 100), metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI, 69 to 95), and overall survival was 87% (95% CI, 76 to 98). Two patients (5%) had durable grade 3 genitourinary toxicity, one combined with GI grade 3 toxicity. A PSA doubling time ≤6 months at salvage, a Gleason score >7, and a PSA nadir ≥0.1 ng/mL predicted a worse outcome. CONCLUSION Reirradiation with EBRT for locally recurrent PCa after primary curative radiation therapy is clinically feasible and demonstrated a favorable outcome with acceptable toxicity in this prospective study with long-term follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Ekanger
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Svein Inge Helle
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Reisæter
- Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Liv Bolstad Hysing
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Technology and Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Rune Kvåle
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
| | - Alfred Honoré
- Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Karsten Gravdal
- Department of Patohology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Technology and Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Olav Dahl
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Marra G, Calleris G, Conte F, Benfant N, Rajwa P, Ahmed M, Abreu A, Cacciamani G, Smith JA, Joniau S, Rodriguez-Sanchez L, Sanchez-Salas R, Cathcart P, Gill I, Karnes RJ, Tilki D, Shariat SF, Touijer K, Gontero P. Recurrent Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy or Ablation: Should We Observe Them All? Results from a Large Multicenter Salvage Radical Prostatectomy Consortium. Eur Urol Focus 2024; 10:461-468. [PMID: 37704503 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.08.007] [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] [Received: 05/14/2023] [Revised: 08/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/31/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) yields poor functional outcomes and relatively high complication rates. Gleason score (GS) 6 prostate cancer (PCa) has genetic and clinical features showing little, if not absent, metastatic potential. However, the behavior of GS 6 PCa recurring after previous PCa treatment including radiotherapy and/or ablation has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the oncological outcomes of sRP for radio- and/or ablation-recurrent GS 6 PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective data of sRP for recurrent PCa after local nonsurgical treatment were collected from 14 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2021. INTERVENTION Prostate biopsy before sRP and sRP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS A survival analysis was performed for pre-sRP biopsy and sRP-proven GS 6. Concordance between PCa at pre-sRP biopsy and sRP histology was assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS We included GS 6 recurrent PCa at pre-sRP biopsy (n = 142) and at sRP (n = 50), as two cohorts. The majority had primary radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy (83.8% of GS 6 patients at pre-sRP biopsy; 78% of GS 6 patients at sRP) and whole-gland treatments (91% biopsy; 85.1% sRP). Biopsy GS 6 10-yr metastasis, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61-89%), 98% (95-99%), and 89% (78-95%), respectively. Upgrading at sRP was 69%, 35.5% had a pT3 stage, and 13.4% had positive nodes. The sRP GS 6 10-yr metastasis-free survival, CSS, and OS were 100%, 100%, and 90% (95% CI 58-98%) respectively; pT3 and pN1 disease were found in 12% and 0%, respectively. Overall complications, high-grade complications, and severe incontinence were experienced by >50%, >10%, and >15% of men, respectively (in both the biopsy and the sRP cohorts). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and absence of a centralized pathological review. CONCLUSIONS GS 6 sRP-proven PCa recurring after nonsurgical primary treatment has almost no metastatic potential, while patients experience relevant morbidity of the procedure. However, a significant proportion of GS 6 cases at pre-sRP biopsy are upgraded at sRP. In the idea not to overtreat, efforts should be made to improve the diagnostic accuracy of pre-sRP biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the oncological results of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer of Gleason score (GS) 6 category. We found a very low malignant potential of GS 6 confirmed at salvage radical prostatectomy despite surgical complications being relatively high. Nonetheless, biopsy GS 6 was frequently upgraded and had less optimal oncological control. Overtreatment for recurrent GS 6 after nonsurgical first-line treatment should be avoided, and efforts should be made to increase the diagnostic accuracy of biopsies for recurrent disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Urology Clinic, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | - Giorgio Calleris
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Urology Clinic, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
| | - Francesca Conte
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Urology Clinic, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | - Nicole Benfant
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Mohamed Ahmed
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Andre Abreu
- USC Institute of Urology & The Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Giovanni Cacciamani
- USC Institute of Urology & The Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Joseph A Smith
- Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Steven Joniau
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lara Rodriguez-Sanchez
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Rafael Sanchez-Salas
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | | | - Inderbir Gill
- USC Institute of Urology & The Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA; Research Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Iranian EBM Center: A Joanna Briggs Institute Center of Excellence, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Karim Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Urology Clinic, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Chen Z, Zhou B, Liu W, Gan H, Chen R, Yang L, Zhou L, Liu X. Diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement among readers with variable experience of the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting system with whole-mount histology after androgen deprivation therapy as a reference. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2024; 14:3006-3017. [PMID: 38617164 PMCID: PMC11007506 DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-1643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
Background The Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system was recently proposed to assess the local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa), but its exact performance for the prostate after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy is difficult to determine. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of this system using whole-mount histology of the prostate after androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as the standard of reference. Methods In total, 119 patients with PCa post-ADT underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) before prostatectomy. Three radiologists analyzed the MRI images independently, scoring imaging findings according to PI-RR. Spearman correlation was performed to assess the relationship between the percentage of sectors with residual cancer and PI-RR score. The diagnostic performance for detection of residual cancer was assessed on a per-sector basis. The chi-squared test was used to compare the cancer detection rate (CDR) among readers. Overall and pairwise interreader agreement in assigning PI-RR categories and residual cancer sectors with a score ≥3 or ≥4 were evaluated with the Cohen kappa coefficient. Results Histology revealed 209 sectors with residual cancer. The percentage of pathologically positive sectors increased with the increase in PI-RR score for all readers. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) at a cutoff of score 3 ranged from 74.2% to 83.7%, 86.4% to 92.7%, 51.3% to 64.3%, and 95.4% to 96.9%, respectively, and at a cutoff of score 4, they ranged from 47.4% to 56.5%, 97.9% to 98.6%, 82.5% to 85.3%, and 91.6% to 92.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the CDR of readers. In PI-RR categories and detection of residual cancer sectors, overall interreader agreement was moderate for all readers, but agreement was higher between the more experienced readers (moderate to substantial) than between the more and less experienced readers (fair to moderate). Conclusions MRI scoring with the PI-RR assessment provided accurate evaluation of PCa after ADT, but readers' experience influenced interreader agreement and cancer diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhangzhe Chen
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Radiology, Shanghai Geriatric Medical Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Bingni Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Hualei Gan
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
- Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Ruchuan Chen
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Lirui Yang
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
- Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Liangping Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaohang Liu
- Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Light A, Lazic S, Houghton K, Bayne M, Connor MJ, Tam H, Ahmed HU, Shah TT, Barwick TD. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Versus Multiparametric MRI for Detection of Intraprostatic Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2024; 65:379-385. [PMID: 38212074 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
For men with prostate cancer who develop biochemical failure after radiotherapy, European guidelines recommend reimaging with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). However, the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for detecting intraprostatic recurrences is unclear, both with and without mpMRI. Methods: A single-center retrospective study of a series of patients investigated for radiorecurrence between 2016 and 2022 is described. All patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy. PET/CT images were interpreted independently by 2 expert readers masked to other imaging and clinical data. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT versus mpMRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alone. The secondary outcome was the proportion of cancers missed by mpMRI but detected by PET/CT. Diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed at the prostate hemigland level using cluster bootstrapping. Results: Thirty-five men (70 hemiglands) were included. Cancer was confirmed by biopsy in 43 of 70 hemiglands (61%). PET/CT sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62-0.95), respectively, which were not significantly different from results by MRI (sensitivity of 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = 0.1) (NPV of 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = 0.07). Specificity and positive predictive values were not significantly different. When PET/CT and MRI were used together, the sensitivity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and NPV was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.75-1.00), both significantly higher than MRI alone (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Specificity and positive predictive values remained not significantly different. MRI missed 12 of 43 cancers (28%; 95% CI, 17%-43%), of which 11 of 12 (92%; 95% CI, 62%-100%) were detected by PET/CT. Conclusion: For detecting intraprostatic radiorecurrence, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT has high sensitivity that is not significantly different from mpMRI. When 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI were used together, the results conferred a significantly greater sensitivity and NPV than with mpMRI alone. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may therefore be a useful tool in the diagnosis of localized radiorecurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stefan Lazic
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Kate Houghton
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Max Bayne
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Martin J Connor
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Tara D Barwick
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kishan AU, Valle LF, Marks LS. Bullseye or Tip of the Iceberg: Magnetic Resonance Imaging-visible Disease in Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2024; 85:47-48. [PMID: 37805372 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - Luca F Valle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Greater Los Angeles Veteran Affairs, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Leonard S Marks
- Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Light A, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial. Eur Urol 2024; 85:35-46. [PMID: 37778954 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Light A, Peters M, Reddy D, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:520-530. [PMID: 37385981 PMCID: PMC10615865 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Max Peters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Deepika Reddy
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
- Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G. Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V. Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Hashim U. Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T. Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Light A, Sarphie DF, Mian R, Li X, Otieno M, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The 'Leucocyte Coping Capacity' test for identifying radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a pilot study. BJU Int 2023; 132:268-271. [PMID: 37169727 PMCID: PMC11034710 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | | | | | | | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hashim U. Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T. Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Geboers B, Scheltema MJ, Blazevski A, Katelaris A, Doan P, Ali I, Agrawal S, Barreto D, Matthews J, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Shnier R, Thompson JE, Stricker PD. Median 4-year outcomes of salvage irreversible electroporation for localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 131 Suppl 4:14-22. [PMID: 36594205 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety, and short to mid-term oncological and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of focal irreversible electroporation (IRE) for radio-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) at a median follow-up of 4 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a single-centre series of men with biopsy-proven radio-recurrent PCa treated with IRE between December 2013 and February 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Follow-up included magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months, and standard transperineal saturation template biopsies at 12 months. Further biopsies were guided by suspicion on serial imaging or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Validated questionnaires were used to measure functional outcomes. Significant local recurrence was defined as any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) score ≥ 2 on biopsies. Progression-free survival was defined as no signs of local or systemic disease on either imaging or template biopsies, or according to the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence. RESULTS Final analysis was performed on 74 men with radio-recurrent PCa (median age 69 years, median PSA level 5.4 ng/mL, 76% ISUP score 2/3). The median (range) follow-up was 48 (27-68) months. One rectal fistula occurred, and eight patients developed urethral sloughing that resolved with transurethral resection. Among patients who returned questionnaires (30/74, 41%), 93% (28/30) had preserved urinary continence and 23% (7/30) had sustained erectile function at 12-month follow-up. Local control was achieved in 57 patients (77%), who needed no further treatment. Biopsy diagnosed 41(55%) patients received follow up template biopsies, in-field recurrences occurred in 7% (3/41), and out-field recurrences occurred in 15% of patients (6/41). The metastasis-free survival rate was 91% (67/74), with a median (interquartile range) time to metastases of 8 (5-27) months. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year progression-free survival rate was 60%. CONCLUSIONS These short- to mid-term safety, oncological and QoL outcome data endorse results from smaller series and show the ability of salvage focal IRE to safely achieve oncological control in patients with radio-recurrent PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Geboers
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Matthijs J Scheltema
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Alexandar Blazevski
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Athos Katelaris
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Paul Doan
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Imran Ali
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Shikha Agrawal
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Daniela Barreto
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jayne Matthews
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne-Maree Haynes
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | - James E Thompson
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Phillip D Stricker
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Blazevski A, Geboers B, Scheltema MJ, Gondoputro W, Doan P, Katelaris A, Agrawal S, Baretto D, Matthews J, Haynes AM, Delprado W, Shnier R, van den Bos W, Thompson JE, Lawrentschuk N, Stricker PD. Salvage irreversible electroporation for radio-recurrent prostate cancer - the prospective FIRE trial. BJU Int 2022. [PMID: 36495482 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15947] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To prospectively assess the safety, functional- and oncological-outcomes of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as salvage therapy for radio-recurrent focal prostate cancer in a multicenter setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with focal recurrent PCa after external beam radiation or brachytherapy without metastatic disease on staging imaging and co-registration between mpMRI and biopsies were prospectively included in this multicenter trial. Adverse events were reported following the Clavien-Dindo classification. Validated questionnaires were used for patient-reported functional outcomes. Follow-up consisted of 3 monthly prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, a 6-month mpMRI and standardised transperineal template mapping biopsies at 12-months. Thereafter follow-up was guided by MRI and/or PSMA-PET/CT and PSA. Local recurrence was defined as any ISUP score ≥2 on biopsies. RESULTS 37 patients were analysed with a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow up of 29 (22-43) months. Median age was 71 (53-83), median PSA was 3.5 ng/mL (2.7-6.1). 28 (75.5%) patients harboured intermediate risk and 9 patients (24.5%) high risk PCa. Seven patients (19%) reported self-limiting urgency, frequency, or hematuria (grade 1-2). Seven patients (19%) developed a grade 3 AE; urethral sludge requiring transurethral resection. At 12 months post treatment 93% of patients remained continent and erectile function sufficient for intercourse deteriorated from 35% to 15% (4/27). Local control was achieved in 29 patients (78%) and 27 patients (73%) were clear of local and systemic disease. Four (11%) patients had local recurrence only. Six (16%) patients developed metastatic disease with a median time to metastasis of 8 months. CONCLUSION The FIRE trial shows that salvage IRE after failed radiation therapy for localised PCa is safe with minimal toxicity, and promising functional and oncological outcomes. Salvage IRE can offer a possible solution for notoriously difficult to manage radio recurrent prostate tumours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandar Blazevski
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Bart Geboers
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Matthijs J Scheltema
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - William Gondoputro
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Paul Doan
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Athos Katelaris
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Shikha Agrawal
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Daniela Baretto
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jayne Matthews
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anne-Maree Haynes
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Warick Delprado
- Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ron Shnier
- I-MED Radiology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Willemien van den Bos
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - James E Thompson
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Nathan Lawrentschuk
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- EJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre at Epworth, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Phillip D Stricker
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research & The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St. Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
|