Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.


Journal

The Lancet. Oncology
ISSN: 1474-5488
Titre abrégé: Lancet Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100957246

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2022
Historique:
received: 27 08 2021
revised: 18 12 2021
accepted: 20 12 2021
entrez: 3 3 2022
pubmed: 4 3 2022
medline: 19 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm
FINDINGS
Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity.
INTERPRETATION
Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone.
FUNDING
The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35240084
pii: S1470-2045(22)00016-X
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00016-X
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02712684']

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

428-438

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of interests HUA reports core funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR, the the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, Prostate Cancer UK, The Urology Foundation, the BMA Foundation, Imperial Healthcare Charity, Sonacare, Trod Medical, and Sophiris Biocorp for trials in prostate cancer; travel allowance from Sonacare; was a paid medical consultant for Sophiris Biocorp and Sonacare; and is a proctor for Boston Scientific. ME receives funding from NIHR's Invention for Innovation programme, MRC, Cancer Research UK, Jon Moulton Charitable Foundation, Sonacare, Trod Medical, Cancer Vaccine Institute, and Sophiris Biocorp for trials in prostate cancer; and acts as a consultant, or trainer and proctor for Sonatherm, Angiodynamics, and Exact Imaging. ADRG has received funding for travel and training from Angiodynamics. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Auteurs

Alistair D R Grey (ADR)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Rebecca Scott (R)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Bina Shah (B)

Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Peter Acher (P)

Department of Urology, Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK.

Sidath Liyanage (S)

Department of Radiology, Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK.

Menelaos Pavlou (M)

Faculty of Medical Sciences, and Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.

Rumana Omar (R)

Faculty of Medical Sciences, and Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.

Frank Chinegwundoh (F)

Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Prasad Patki (P)

Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Taimur T Shah (TT)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Sami Hamid (S)

Department of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.

Maneesh Ghei (M)

Department of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.

Kayleigh Gilbert (K)

Department of Urology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.

Diane Campbell (D)

Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Chris Brew-Graves (C)

Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Nimalan Arumainayagam (N)

Department of Urology, Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Alex Chapman (A)

Department of Radiology, Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK.

Laura McLeavy (L)

Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Angeliki Karatziou (A)

Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Zayneb Alsaadi (Z)

Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Tom Collins (T)

Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Alex Freeman (A)

Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.

David Eldred-Evans (D)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Mariana Bertoncelli-Tanaka (M)

Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Henry Tam (H)

Department of Radiology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Navin Ramachandran (N)

Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Sanjeev Madaan (S)

Department of Urology, Darent Valley Hospital, Dartford, UK.

Mathias Winkler (M)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Manit Arya (M)

Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Mark Emberton (M)

Division of Surgical and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Hashim U Ahmed (HU)

Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH