Twelve-month prostate volume reduction after MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of the prostate.
Aged
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Follow-Up Studies
High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation
/ methods
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Size
Prospective Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ pathology
Time Factors
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Biopsy, needle
High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation
Interventional magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Thermometry
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
08
01
2018
accepted:
01
06
2018
revised:
08
05
2018
pubmed:
27
6
2018
medline:
12
2
2019
entrez:
27
6
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To quantitatively assess 12-month prostate volume (PV) reduction based on T2-weighted MRI and immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI non-perfused volume (NPV), and to compare measurements with predictions of acute and delayed ablation volumes based on MR-thermometry (MR-t), in a central radiology review of the Phase I clinical trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) in patients with localized prostate cancer. Treatment day MRI and 12-month follow-up MRI and biopsy were available for central radiology review in 29 of 30 patients from the published institutional review board-approved, prospective, multi-centre, single-arm Phase I clinical trial of TULSA. Viable PV at 12 months was measured as the remaining PV on T2-weighted MRI, less 12-month NPV, scaled by the fraction of fibrosis in 12-month biopsy cores. Reduction of viable PV was compared to predictions based on the fraction of the prostate covered by the MR-t derived acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV, 55°C isotherm), delayed thermal ablation volume (DTAV, 240 cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C thermal dose isocontour) and treatment-day NPV. We also report linear and volumetric comparisons between metrics. After TULSA, the median 12-month reduction in viable PV was 88%. DTAV predicted a reduction of 90%. Treatment day NPV predicted only 53% volume reduction, and underestimated ATAV and DTAV by 36% and 51%. Quantitative volumetry of the TULSA phase I MR and biopsy data identifies DTAV (240 CEM43 thermal dose boundary) as a useful predictor of viable prostate tissue reduction at 12 months. Immediate post-treatment NPV underestimates tissue ablation. • MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) achieved an 88% reduction of viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months, in excellent agreement with expectation from thermal dose calculations. • Non-perfused volume on immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI represents only 64% of the acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV), and reports only 60% (53% instead of 88% achieved) of the reduction in viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months. • MR-thermometry-based predictions of 12-month prostate volume reduction based on 240 cumulative equivalent minute thermal dose volume are in excellent agreement with reduction in viable prostate tissue volume measured on pre- and 12-month post-treatment T2w-MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29943185
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5584-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5584-y
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase I
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
299-308Références
Radiology. 2000 Jan;214(1):290-7
pubmed: 10644139
Radiology. 2000 Aug;216(2):517-23
pubmed: 10924580
JAMA. 2005 May 4;293(17):2095-101
pubmed: 15870412
J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):1080-5
pubmed: 17644137
Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 7;54(9):2615-33
pubmed: 19351975
Prostate. 2010 Aug;70(11):1196-200
pubmed: 20564422
Med Phys. 2010 Jun;37(6):2862-75
pubmed: 20632598
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Nov 21;55(22):6817-39
pubmed: 21030751
IEEE Pulse. 2011 Nov;2(6):60-70
pubmed: 22147070
J Clin Pathol. 2012 Aug;65(8):729-34
pubmed: 22659332
Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):303-13
pubmed: 22929332
Eur Urol. 2013 Feb;63(2):395-8
pubmed: 23159454
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):436-45
pubmed: 23363497
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013 Jul;8(4):607-20
pubmed: 23588509
Brachytherapy. 2013 Jul-Aug;12(4):331-7
pubmed: 23601349
BJU Int. 2013 Oct;112(6):766-74
pubmed: 24028764
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):8-19
pubmed: 25454618
J Urol. 2015 May;193(5):1669-75
pubmed: 25464003
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 20;33(3):272-7
pubmed: 25512465
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):924-6
pubmed: 25979568
J Endourol. 2015 Oct;29(10):1193-8
pubmed: 26058496
Eur Urol. 2016 Feb;69(2):214-20
pubmed: 26164416
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):W177-84
pubmed: 26204305
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33(30):3379-85
pubmed: 26324359
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30
pubmed: 26742998
Eur Urol. 2016 Sep;70(3):447-55
pubmed: 26777228
J Urol. 2016 Sep;196(3):883-90
pubmed: 27113966
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Sep;19(3):283-91
pubmed: 27184812
J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1670-1675
pubmed: 27449263
J Urol. 2017 Jan;197(1):255-261
pubmed: 27545572
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):17-34
pubmed: 27595377
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):888-896
pubmed: 28400169
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1984 Jun;10(6):787-800
pubmed: 6547421
Magn Reson Med. 1995 Dec;34(6):814-23
pubmed: 8598808
Br J Urol. 1998 Feb;81(2):265-75
pubmed: 9488071