Imaging low-risk prostate cancer:

MRI for men undergoing active surveillance or with rising PSA and negative biopsies

The role of imaging in treatment decision-making for patients with prostate cancer is to characterize the cancer already diagnosed on biopsy, to determine tumor location, to assess tumor volume, and to exclude more-extensive disease. MRI is currently the most established imaging modality for this purpose, with the highest sensitivity and specificity for detection and staging of prostate tumors. The development and wider adoption of active surveillance and focal treatment approaches would also benefit from accurate localization of cancer. As such, 3 T MRI and multiparametric approaches are being developed as tools for the localization and staging of prostate cancer. Men wishing to commence or remain on active surveillance might benefit by having larger cancers identified before embarking on this management strategy. MRI might have its greatest role in patients where there is a discrepancy between PSA and biopsy results suggesting a potential missed prostate tumor.

Clinically low-risk prostate cancer: evaluation with transrectal doppler ultrasound and functional magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate transrectal ultrasound, amplitude Doppler ultrasound, conventional T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, spectroscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in localizing and locally staging low-risk prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer has been diagnosed at earlier stages and the most accepted classification for low-risk prostate cancer is based on clinical stage T1c or T2a, Gleason score ≤6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/ml.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2006, magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 42 patients, and transrectal ultrasound in 26 of these patients. Seven patients were excluded from the study. Mean patient age was 64.94 years and mean serum PSA was 6.05 ng/ml. The examinations were analyzed for tumor identification and location in prostate sextants, detection of extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion, using surgical pathology findings as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (45.7%) had pathologically proven organ-confined disease, 11 (31.4%) had positive surgical margin, 8 (28.9%) had extracapsular extension, and 3 (8.6%) presented with extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy values for localizing low-risk prostate cancer were 53.1%, 48.3%, 63.4%, 37.8% and 51.3% for transrectal ultrasound; 70.4%, 36.2%, 65.1%, 42.0% and 57.7% for amplitude Doppler ultrasound; 71.5%, 58.9%, 76.6%, 52.4% and 67.1% for magnetic resonance imaging; 70.4%, 58.7%, 78.4%, 48.2% and 66.7% for magnetic resonance spectroscopy; 67.2%, 65.7%, 79.3%, 50.6% and 66.7% for dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy values for detecting extracapsular extension were 33.3%, 92%, 14.3%, 97.2% and 89.7% for transrectal ultrasound and 50.0%, 77.6%, 13.7%, 95.6% and 75.7% for magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. For detecting seminal vesicle invasion, these values were 66.7%, 85.7%, 22.2%, 97.7% and 84.6% for transrectal ultrasound and 40.0%, 83.1%, 15.4%, 94.7% and 80.0% for magnetic resonance imaging.

CONCLUSION

Although preliminary, our results suggest that imaging modalities have limited usefulness in localizing and locally staging clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Nomogram to predict insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in Korean men: a multi-center study

PURPOSE

Due to the availability of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, the detection rate of insignificant prostate cancer (IPC) is increasing. To ensure better treatment decisions, we developed a nomogram to predict the probability of IPC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 1,471 patients who were treated at multiple institutions by radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant therapy from 1995 to 2008. We obtained nonrandom samples of n = 1,031 for nomogram development, leaving n = 440 for nomogram validation. IPC was defined as pathologic organ-confined disease and a tumor volume of 0.5 cc or less without Gleason grade 4 or 5. Multivariate logistic regression model (MLRM) coefficients were used to construct a nomogram to predict IPC from five variables, including serum prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, positive cores ratio and maximum % of tumor in any core. The performance characteristics were internally validated from 200 bootstrap resamples to reduce overfit bias. External validation was also performed in another cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 67 (6.5%) patients had a so-called "insignificant" tumor in nomogram development cohort. PSA, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, positive core ratio and maximum % of biopsy tumor represented significant predictors of the presence of IPC. The resulting nomogram had excellent discrimination accuracy, with a bootstrapped concordance index of 0.827.

CONCLUSION

Our current nomogram provides sufficiently accurate information in clinical practice that may be useful to patients and clinicians when various treatment options for screen-detected prostate cancer are considered.

Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current status of MRI techniques in identification of organ-confined prostate cancer with a focus on their implication for focal therapy and active surveillance.

RECENT FINDINGS

MRI is currently focusing on intraprostatic prostate cancer identification and at 1.5T, it provides excellent imaging of the whole gland including the challenging anterior part. Improvements in accuracy for cancer detection and volume estimation result from dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI sequences. 3T MRI might improve cancer identification. Histological correlations showed high sensitivity and specificity for significant volume cancers larger than 0.5 cm3. Important knowledge on modelling of cancer morphology such as zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology was made available for imaging interpretation and treatment planning decision. MRI results allow focused use of biopsy which led to better cancer characterization such as extent and grade. Ongoing focal therapy protocols and active surveillance treatments should benefit from these imaging advances.

SUMMARY

At present, high-resolution MRI with pelvic coil appears to offer the most readily available and useful imaging. Future studies should work towards helping define standard, reproducible approaches to imaging and image reporting for research and clinical practice.

Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews a recent 2-day workshop on prostate cancer and imaging technology that was conducted by the Cancer Imaging Program of the National Cancer Institute. The workshop dealt with research trends and avenues for improving imaging and applications across the clinical spectrum of the disease.

CONCLUSION

After a summary of prostate cancer incidence and mortality, four main clinical challenges in prostate cancer treatment and management-diagnostic accuracy; risk stratification, initial staging, active surveillance, and focal therapy; prostate-specific antigen relapse after radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy; and assessing response to therapy in advanced disease-were discussed by the 55-member panel. The overarching issue in prostate cancer is distinguishing lethal from nonlethal disease. New technologies and fresh uses for established procedures make imaging effective in both assessing and treating prostate cancer.