MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance.
Active surveillance
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
23
07
2020
revised:
16
06
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
16
4
2021
entrez:
16
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the predictive value and correlation to pathological progression of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scoring system in the follow-up of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS). A total of 295 men enrolled on an AS programme between 2011 and 2018 were included. Baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was performed at AS entry to guide biopsy. The follow-up mpMRI studies were prospectively reported by two sub-specialist uroradiologists with 10 years and 13 years of experience. PRECISE scores were dichotomized at the cut-off value of 4, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Diagnostic performance was further quantified by using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) which was based on the results of targeted MRI-US fusion biopsy. Univariate analysis using Cox regression was performed to assess which baseline clinical and mpMRI parameters were related to disease progression on AS. Progression rate of the cohort was 13.9% (41/295) over a median follow-up of 52 months. With a cut-off value of category ≥ 4, the PRECISE scoring system showed sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for predicting progression on AS of 0.76, 0.89, 0.52 and 0.96, respectively. The AUC was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.74-0.90). Prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), Likert lesion score and index lesion size were the only significant baseline predictors of progression (each p < 0.05). The PRECISE scoring system showed good overall performance, and the high NPV may help limit the number of follow-up biopsies required in patients on AS. • PRECISE scores 1-3 have high NPV which could reduce the need for re-biopsy during active surveillance. • PRECISE scores 4-5 have moderate PPV and should trigger either close monitoring or re-biopsy. • Three baseline predictors (PSA density, lesion size and Likert score) have a significant impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33196886
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07336-0
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-07336-0
pmc: PMC8043947
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2696-2705Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al (2018) EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2018. In: European Association of Urology guidelines. 2018 Edition. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem
Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA et al (2016) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 34:2182–2190. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759
pubmed: 26884580
Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF et al (2018) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
pubmed: 29937198
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management, clinical guideline [CG175], 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/chapter/1-recommendations . Accessed 26 Mar 2019
Sushentsev N, Caglic I, Sala E et al (2020) The effect of capped active surveillance biparametric magnetic resonance imaging slots on weekly prostate cancer imaging workload. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20190929
Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A et al (2015) Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol 68:814–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.012
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.012
pubmed: 26138043
Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043
pubmed: 20089283
Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P et al (2017) Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations—a report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol 71:648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
pubmed: 27349615
Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2018) Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int
Thurtle D, Barrett T, Thankappan-Nair V, et al (2018) Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14166
Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K et al (2016) Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the Ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 70:332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.064
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.064
pubmed: 26995327
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
pubmed: 22322308
pmcid: 22322308
Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 70:1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
pubmed: 26231470
pmcid: 6369533
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 0232:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Sanguedolce F, Petralia G, Sokhi H et al (2018) Baseline multiparametric MRI for selection of prostate cancer patients suitable for active surveillance: which features matter? Clin Genitourin Cancer 16:155–163.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.020
Gnanapragasam VJ, Barrett T, Thankapannair V et al (2019) Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 124:758–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14800
doi: 10.1111/bju.14800
pubmed: 31063245
Gnanapragasam VJ, Bratt O, Muir K et al (2018) The Cambridge Prognostic Groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a validation study. BMC Med 16:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1019-5
doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1019-5
pubmed: 29490658
pmcid: 5831573
Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N et al (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187:1247–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
pubmed: 22335871
Gallagher KM, Christopher E, Cameron AJ et al (2019) Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies. BJU Int 123:429–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14513
doi: 10.1111/bju.14513
pubmed: 30113755
Thurtle D, Barrett T, Thankappan-Nair V et al (2018) Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14166
doi: 10.1111/bju.14166
pubmed: 29438586
Felker ER, Wu J, Natarajan S et al (2016) Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value. J Urol 195:1421–1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.055
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.055
pubmed: 26674305
Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK et al (2015) Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 33:202.e1–202.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.01.023
Eineluoto JT, Järvinen P, Kenttämies A et al (2017) Repeat multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. PLoS One 12:e0189272. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189272
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189272
pubmed: 29281647
pmcid: 5744936
Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 197:640–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109
pubmed: 27613356
Hefermehl LJ, Disteldorf D, Lehmann K (2016) Acknowledging unreported problems with active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective single-centre observational study. BMJ Open 6:e010191. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010191
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010191
pubmed: 26888730
pmcid: 4762090
Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. Int Braz J Urol 37:278–279. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382011000200021
Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A et al (2010) Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 58:831–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027
pubmed: 20800964
van den Bergh RCN, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG et al (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int 105:956–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08887.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08887.x
pubmed: 19817747
van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K et al (2008) Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 54:1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039
pubmed: 18342430
Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A et al (2020) Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol 77:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007
pubmed: 31708295
Caglic I, Kovac V, Barrett T (2019) Multiparametric MRI - local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol 53:159–170. https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2019-0021
doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0021
pubmed: 31103999
pmcid: 6572496
Barrett T, Rajesh A, Rosenkrantz AB, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2019) PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol 74:841–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.019
Barrett T, Slough R, Sushentsev N et al (2019) Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways. Clin Radiol 74:894.e1–894.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.004
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.06.004
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
pubmed: 28110982
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502