Can quantitative analysis of multi-parametric MRI independently predict failure of focal salvage HIFU therapy in men with radio-recurrent prostate cancer?
HIFU
Prostate cancer
Quantitative parameters
Radiotherapy
Salvage treatment
Journal
Urologic oncology
ISSN: 1873-2496
Titre abrégé: Urol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9805460
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
05
12
2020
revised:
28
02
2021
accepted:
12
04
2021
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
10
2
2022
entrez:
29
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Focal salvage HIFU is a feasible therapeutic option in some men who have recurrence after primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We aimed to determine if multi-parametric quantitative parameters, in addition to clinical factors, might have a role in independently predicting focal salvage HIFU outcomes. A retrospective registry analysis included 150 consecutive men who underwent focal salvage HIFU (Sonablate500) (2006-2015); 89 had mpMRI available. Metastatic disease was excluded by nodal assessment on pelvic MRI, a radioisotope bone-scan and/or choline or FDG PET/CT scan. All men had mpMRI and either transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy or targeted and systematic TRUS-biopsy. mpMRI included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhancement. Pre-HIFU quantitative mpMRI data was obtained using Horos DICOM Viewer v3.3.5 for general MRI parameters and IB DCE v2.0 plug-in. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined by biochemical failure and/or positive localized or distant imaging results and/or positive biopsy and/or systemic therapy and/or metastases/prostate cancer-specific death. Potential predictors of PFS were analyzed by univariable and multivariable Cox-regression. Median age at focal salvage HIFU was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] 65-74.5) and median PSA pre-focal salvage treatment was 5.8ng/ml (3.8-8). Median follow-up was 35 months (23-47) and median time to failure was 15 months (7.8-24.3). D-Amico low, intermediate and high-risk disease was present in 1% (1/89), 40% (36/89) and 43% (38/89) prior to focal salvage HIFU (16% missing data). 56% (50/89) failed by the composite outcome. A total of 22 factors were evaluated on univariable and 8 factors on multivariable analysis. The following quantitative parameters were included: Ktrans, Kep, Ve, Vp, IS, rTTP and TTP. On univariable analysis, PSA, prostate volume at time of radiotherapy failure and Ve (median) value were predictors for failure. Ve represents extracellular fraction of the whole tissue volume. On multivariable analysis, only Ve (median) value remained as an independent predictor. One pharmacokinetic quantitative parameter based on DCE sequences seems to independently predict failure following focal salvage HIFU for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. This likely relates to the tumor microenvironment producing heat-sinks which counter the heating effect of HIFU. Further validation in larger datasets and evaluating mechanisms to reduce heat-sinks are required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34049783
pii: S1078-1439(21)00176-9
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.017
pmc: PMC8639607
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
830.e1-830.e8Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204998/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jun;25(3):139-47
pubmed: 27187164
Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Apr 20;128(8):1128-33
pubmed: 25881611
BJU Int. 2017 Aug;120(2):246-256
pubmed: 28258616
Am J Surg Pathol. 1999 Oct;23(10):1173-83
pubmed: 10524518
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Oct;199(4):822-9
pubmed: 22997374
Oncotarget. 2018 Mar 23;9(22):15997-16007
pubmed: 29662622
Oncology (Williston Park). 2018 Sep 18;32(9):470-4, CV3
pubmed: 30248169
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Nov;28(5):1173-9
pubmed: 18837000
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):360-71
pubmed: 17516739
Acta Radiol. 2018 Aug;59(8):1010-1017
pubmed: 29137496
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jul;50(1):269-278
pubmed: 30585368
Int Braz J Urol. 2018 Mar-Apr;44(2):248-257
pubmed: 29211405
World J Urol. 2019 Aug;37(8):1469-1483
pubmed: 30955047
J Urol. 2019 Oct;202(4):725-731
pubmed: 31075058
Hum Pathol. 2010 Jun;41(6):781-93
pubmed: 20466122
World J Radiol. 2017 Dec 28;9(12):416-425
pubmed: 29354207
Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):961-71
pubmed: 22280856