1
|
Margolis DJA, Chatterjee A, deSouza NM, Fedorov A, Fennessy FM, Maier SE, Obuchowski N, Punwani S, Purysko A, Rakow-Penner R, Shukla-Dave A, Tempany CM, Boss M, Malyarenko D. Quantitative Prostate MRI, From the AJR Special Series on Quantitative Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2024:10.2214/AJR.24.31715. [PMID: 39356481 PMCID: PMC11961719 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.24.31715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/03/2024]
Abstract
Prostate MRI has traditionally relied on qualitative interpretation. However, quantitative components hold the potential to markedly improve performance. The ADC from DWI is probably the most widely recognized quantitative MRI biomarker and has shown strong discriminatory value for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) as well as for recurrent cancer after treatment. Advanced diffusion techniques, including intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion kurtosis, diffusion tensor imaging, and specific implementations such as restriction spectrum imaging, purport even better discrimination, but are more technically challenging. The inherent T1 and T2 of tissue also provide diagnostic value, with more advanced techniques deriving luminal water imaging and hybrid-multidimensional MRI. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, primarily using a modified Tofts model, also shows independent discriminatory value. Finally, quantitative size and shape features can be combined with the aforementioned techniques and be further refined using radiomics, texture analysis, and artificial intelligence. Which technique will ultimately find widespread clinical use will depend on validation across a myriad of platforms use-cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Nandita M deSouza
- The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andriy Fedorov
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Fiona M Fennessy
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Stephan E Maier
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrei Purysko
- Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - Amita Shukla-Dave
- Departments of Medical Physics and Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
Di Lalla V, Elakshar S, Anidjar M, Tolba M, Hassan T, Bahoric B, McPherson V, Probst S, Niazi T. Salvage external beam radiotherapy after HIFU failure in localized prostate cancer: A single institution experience. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1028858. [DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1028858] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/objectivesHigh-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) remains investigational as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer but is sometimes offered to select patients. At HIFU failure, data guiding salvage treatment is limited to small retrospective series with short follow-up. We evaluated our institutional experience using salvage radiation therapy (SRT) after HIFU failure.Materials/methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with local failure post-HIFU who received salvage image-guided external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivered via intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Our primary endpoint was biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir + 2 ng/mL. Secondary endpoints included metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Endpoints were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2018, 12 out of 96 patients treated with primary HIFU received SRT via conventional or moderate hypofractionation. Median time from HIFU to SRT was 13.5 months. Seven patients had stage migration to high-risk disease at the time of SRT. Mean PSA prior to SRT was 8.2ug/L and mean nadir post-SRT was 1.2ug/L. Acute International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) as well as International Index of Erectile Dysfunction (IIEF) scores were similar to baseline (p = 0.5 and 0.1, respectively). Late toxicities were comparable to those reported after primary EBRT for localized prostate cancer. At a median follow-up of 46 months, the OS was 100%. The 5-year bFFS and MFS were both 83.3%.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, we report one of the largest series on contemporary SRT post HIFU failure. We show that SRT is feasible, effective and carries no additional acute or delayed toxicity.
Collapse
|
4
|
deSouza NM, Gedroyc W, Rivens I, ter Haar G. Tissue specific considerations in implementing high intensity focussed ultrasound under magnetic resonance imaging guidance. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1037959. [PMID: 36387108 PMCID: PMC9663991 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1037959] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 10/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
High-intensity focused ultrasound can ablate a target permanently, leaving tissues through which it passes thermally unaffected. When delivered under magnetic resonance (MR) imaging guidance, the change in tissue relaxivity on heating is used to monitor the temperatures achieved. Different tissue types in the pre-focal beam path result in energy loss defined by their individual attenuation coefficients. Furthermore, at interfaces with different acoustic impedances the beam will be both reflected and refracted, changing the position of the focus. For complex interfaces this effect is exacerbated. Moreover, blood vessels proximal to the focal region can dissipate heat, altering the expected region of damage. In the target volume, the temperature distribution depends on the thermal conductivity (or diffusivity) of the tissue and its heat capacity. These are different for vascular tissues, water and fat containing tissues and bone. Therefore, documenting the characteristics of the pre-focal and target tissues is critical for effective delivery of HIFU. MR imaging provides excellent anatomic detail and characterization of soft tissue components. It is an ideal modality for real-time planning and monitoring of HIFU ablation, and provides non-invasive temperature maps. Clinical applications involve soft-tissue (abdomino-pelvic applications) or bone (brain applications) pre-focally and at the target (soft-tissue tumors and bone metastases respectively). This article addresses the technical difficulties of delivering HIFU effectively when vascular tissues, densely cellular tissues, fat or bone are traversed pre-focally, and the clinical applications that target these tissues. The strengths and limitations of MR techniques used for monitoring ablation in these tissues are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nandita M. deSouza
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wladyslaw Gedroyc
- Faculty of Medicine, St. Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ian Rivens
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Gail ter Haar
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|