What is the effect of MRI with targeted biopsies on the rate of patients discontinuing active surveillance? A reflection of the use of MRI in the PRIAS study.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
16
10
2020
accepted:
22
02
2021
pubmed:
10
4
2021
medline:
1
3
2022
entrez:
9
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reduction of overtreatment by active surveillance (AS) is limited in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to high rates of patients switching to radical treatment. MRI improves biopsy accuracy and could therewith affect inclusion in or continuation of AS. We aim to assess the effect of MRI with target biopsies on the total rate of patients discontinuing AS, and in particular discontinuation due to Grade Group (GG) reclassification. Three subpopulations included in the prospective PRIAS study with GG 1 were studied. Group A consists of patients diagnosed before 2009 without MRI before or during AS. Group B consists of patients diagnosed without MRI, but all patients underwent MRI within 6 months after diagnosis. Group C consists of patients who underwent MRI before diagnosis and during follow-up. We used cumulative incidence curves to estimate the rates of discontinuation. In Group A (n = 500), the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years is 27.5%; GG reclassification solely accounted for 6.9% of the discontinuation. In Group B (n = 351) these numbers are 30.9 and 22.8%, and for Group C (n = 435) 24.2 and 13.4%. The three groups were not randomized, however, baseline characteristics are highly comparable. Performing an MRI before starting AS reduces the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years. Performing an MRI after already being on AS increases the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS in comparison to not performing an MRI, especially because of an increase in GG reclassification. These results suggest that the use of MRI could lead to more patients being considered unsuitable for AS. Considering the excellent long-term cancer-specific survival of AS before the MRI era, the increased diagnostic accuracy of MRI could potentially lead to more overtreatment if definitions and treatment options of significant PCa are not adapted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The reduction of overtreatment by active surveillance (AS) is limited in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to high rates of patients switching to radical treatment. MRI improves biopsy accuracy and could therewith affect inclusion in or continuation of AS. We aim to assess the effect of MRI with target biopsies on the total rate of patients discontinuing AS, and in particular discontinuation due to Grade Group (GG) reclassification.
METHODS
Three subpopulations included in the prospective PRIAS study with GG 1 were studied. Group A consists of patients diagnosed before 2009 without MRI before or during AS. Group B consists of patients diagnosed without MRI, but all patients underwent MRI within 6 months after diagnosis. Group C consists of patients who underwent MRI before diagnosis and during follow-up. We used cumulative incidence curves to estimate the rates of discontinuation.
RESULTS
In Group A (n = 500), the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years is 27.5%; GG reclassification solely accounted for 6.9% of the discontinuation. In Group B (n = 351) these numbers are 30.9 and 22.8%, and for Group C (n = 435) 24.2 and 13.4%. The three groups were not randomized, however, baseline characteristics are highly comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
Performing an MRI before starting AS reduces the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years. Performing an MRI after already being on AS increases the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS in comparison to not performing an MRI, especially because of an increase in GG reclassification. These results suggest that the use of MRI could lead to more patients being considered unsuitable for AS. Considering the excellent long-term cancer-specific survival of AS before the MRI era, the increased diagnostic accuracy of MRI could potentially lead to more overtreatment if definitions and treatment options of significant PCa are not adapted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33833378
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00343-2
pii: 10.1038/s41391-021-00343-2
pmc: PMC8616762
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1048-1054Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272–7.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–85.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. ISBN 978-94-92671-07-3.
https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-clinically-localized-guideline , 2017.
Drost FH, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Remmers S, et al. Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:98–105.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.28
Van Hemelrijck M, Ji X, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, van der Linden W, Nieboer D, et al. Reasons for discontinuing active surveillance: assessment of 21 centres in 12 countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium. Eur Urol. 2019;75:523–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.025
van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1560–3.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.011
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Drost F-JH, Osses D, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. European urology. 2020;77:78–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
Inoue LY, Trock BJ, Partin AW, Carter HB, Etzioni R. Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat Med. 2014;33:930–9.
doi: 10.1002/sim.6003
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70:954–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007
Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, et al. 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. 2017;71:648–55.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: 2018. https://www.R-project.org .
Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D, et al. 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. 2020;77:311–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007
Chesnut GT, Vertosick EA, Benfante N, Sjoberg DD, Fainberg J, Lee T, et al. Role of changes in magnetic resonance imaging or clinical stage in evaluation of disease progression for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2020;77:501–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.009
Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, et al. Value of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance after 1 yr follow-up. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:407–15.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008
Schoots IG, Osses DF, Drost FH, Verbeek JFM, Remmers S, van Leenders G, et al. Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:132–44.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.29
Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Melamed J, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1096–101.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000235
van Leenders G, Kweldam CF, Hollemans E, Kummerlin IP, Nieboer D, Verhoef EI, et al. Improved prostate cancer biopsy grading by incorporation of invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in the 2014 grade groups. Eur Urol. 2020;77:191–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.051
Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, Rietbergen J, Roobol MJ, Helleman J, et al. Clinical outcome comparison of Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with and without cribriform architecture at the time of radical prostatectomy. Histopathology. 2020;76:755–62.
doi: 10.1111/his.14064
van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, Kweldam CF, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87–e99.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497
Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, Klotz L, McGowan T, Srigley J, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:171–8.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2806
Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR, et al. 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. 2016;34:2182–90.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759
Agrawal V, Ma X, Hu JC, Barbieri CE, Nagar H. Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2020: 101097JU0000000000001241.
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:353–65.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, et al. Five-year Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Large Cohort Study. Eur Urol. 2020;78:443–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.035
Tomer A, Nieboer D, Roobol MJ, Bjartell A, Steyerberg EW, Rizopoulos D, et al. Personalized biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int. 2021;127:96–107.
doi: 10.1111/bju.15136
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, et al. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol. 2019;75:310–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031