MRI lesion size is more important than the number of positive biopsy cores in predicting adverse features and recurrence after radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance criteria in intermediate-risk patients.


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:
14 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 06 04 2023
accepted: 29 06 2023
revised: 06 06 2023
medline: 15 7 2023
pubmed: 15 7 2023
entrez: 14 7 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To determine associations between prostate cancer (PCa) tumor burden measured on biopsy or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and outcomes in intermediate-risk (IR) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 men managed with primary radical prostatectomy (RP). This retrospective, multicenter study was conducted in eight referral centers. The cohort included IR PCa patients who had ISUP 2 at biopsy. We defined biopsy tumor burden as low/high based on the absence/presence of more than 25% positive cores. Tumor burden on imaging was defined as low/high based on maximum lesion diameter, <15 mm and ≥15 mm at mpMRI, respectively. The histological endpoint of the study was adverse features at RP, defined as ≥pT3a stage and/or lymph node invasion and/or ISUP ≥3 at final pathology. The clinical endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP. A total of 698 IR patients was included, of whom 335 (48%) had adverse features. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no statistical association between tumor burden at biopsy and adverse features (p = 0.7). Tumor size ≥15 mm at mpMRI was significantly associated with adverse pathology (OR 1.65, 95%CI 1.14-2.39; p = 0.01). No significant association was observed between tumor burden at biopsy and BCR (p = 0.4). Tumor size ≥15 mm at mpMRI was significantly associated with BCR (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.01-3.80; p = 0.04). Our data support extending the inclusion criteria to ISUP 2 men with >25% positive cores, provided they have a low tumor size at mpMRI (<15 mm). Prospective studies should be performed to validate these findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37452146
doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00693-z
pii: 10.1038/s41391-023-00693-z
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Références

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 pubmed: 26324359 pmcid: 4863946
Tzeng M, Basourakos SP, Davuluri M, Nagar H, Ramaswamy A, Cheng E, et al. Evolving trends in the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022;20:423–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.05.004 pubmed: 35701333
Baboudjian M, Breda A, Rajwa P, Gallioli A, Gondran-Tellier B, Sanguedolce F, et al. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and metaregression. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:617–27.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.07.004 pubmed: 35934625
Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, Part II: Principles of active surveillance, principles of surgery, and follow-up. J Urol. 2022;208:19–25.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002758 pubmed: 35536148
Willemse PM, Davis NF, Grivas N, Zattoni F, Lardas M, Briers E, et al. Systematic review of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer to develop recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and surveillance repeat biopsy strategy. Eur Urol. 2022;81:337–46.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005 pubmed: 23159452
Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Stephenson AJ. Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:1003–9.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14418 pubmed: 29802773 pmcid: 6737926
Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PM, Mason MD, Plass K, Shepherd R, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019;76:790–813.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020 pubmed: 31587989
Baboudjian M, Ploussard G. Gleason grade 1 prostate cancer volume at biopsy is associated with upgrading, but not adverse pathology or recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from a large institutional cohort. Letter. J Urol. 2023;209:72.
Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013;190:1213–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.127 pubmed: 23727188
de Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, Raimondi S, Bottero D, Cioffi A, et al. Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0139696.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139696 pubmed: 26444548 pmcid: 4596627
Deniffel D, Salinas E, Ientilucci M, Evans AJ, Fleshner N, Ghai S, et al. Does the visibility of grade group 1 prostate cancer on baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging impact clinical outcomes? J Urol. 2020;204:1187–94.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001157 pubmed: 32496160
Lantz A, Falagario UG, Ratnani P, Jambor I, Dovey Z, Martini A, et al. Expanding active surveillance inclusion criteria: a novel nomogram including preoperative clinical parameters and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:187–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.001 pubmed: 32891599
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y pubmed: 22322308 pmcid: 3297750
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 pubmed: 26427566
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 pubmed: 26225165 pmcid: 4479637
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 pubmed: 26884580
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5.
Gandaglia G, van den Bergh RCN, Tilki D, Fossati N, Ost P, Surcel CI, et al. How can we expand active surveillance criteria in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer without increasing the risk of misclassification? Development of a novel risk calculator. BJU Int. 2018;122:823–30.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14391 pubmed: 29772103
Diamand R, Albisinni S, Roche JB, Lievore E, Lacetera V, Chiacchio G, et al. Expanding active surveillance criteria for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer: can we accurately predict the risk of misclassification for patients diagnosed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy? Eur Urol Focus. 2022;S2405-4569:00220–6.
Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Biesma DH, Witjes JA, van Basten JA. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. Urology. 2021;147:205–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.089 pubmed: 33129868
Manceau C, Beauval JB, Lesourd M, Almeras C, Aziza R, Gautier JR, et al. MRI characteristics accurately predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3841.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9123841 pubmed: 33256176 pmcid: 7760513
Baboudjian M, Gondran-Tellier B, Touzani A, Martini A, Diamand R, Roche JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-based t-staging to predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a step towards the iTNM classification. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:617–27.
Triquell M, Regis L, Winkler M, Valdés N, Cuadras M, Celma A, et al. Multiparametric MRI for staging of prostate cancer: a multicentric analysis of predictive factors to improve identification of extracapsular extension before radical prostatectomy. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:3966.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14163966 pubmed: 36010963
Stabile A, Mazzone E, Cirulli GO, De Cobelli F, Grummet J, Thoeny HC, et al. Association between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and oncological outcomes after primary treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:519–28.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.11.008 pubmed: 33384275
Sugano D, Sidana A, Jain AL, Calio B, Gaur S, Maruf M, et al. Index tumor volume on MRI as a predictor of clinical and pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51:1349–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02168-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11255-019-02168-4 pubmed: 31098818 pmcid: 8274954
Tan N, Shen L, Khoshnoodi P, Alcalá HE, Yu W, Hsu W, et al. Pathological and 3 tesla volumetric magnetic resonance imaging predictors of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: correlation with whole mount histopathology. J Urol. 2018;199:1218–23.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.042 pubmed: 29128577
Woo S, Han S, Kim TH, Suh CH, Westphalen AC, Hricak H, et al. Prognostic value of pretreatment MRI in patients with prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:597–604.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21836 pubmed: 31799874
Martini A, Gandaglia G, Karnes RJ, Zaffuto E, Bianchi M, Gontero P, et al. Defining the most informative intermediate clinical endpoints for predicting overall survival in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:456–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.12.002 pubmed: 31277783

Auteurs

Michael Baboudjian (M)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France. Michael.BABOUDJIAN@outlook.fr.
Department of Urology, North Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France. Michael.BABOUDJIAN@outlook.fr.
Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France. Michael.BABOUDJIAN@outlook.fr.

Alessandro Uleri (A)

Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Jean-Baptiste Beauval (JB)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.

Alae Touzani (A)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.

Romain Diamand (R)

Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Jean-Baptiste Roche (JB)

Urology Department, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.

Vito Lacetera (V)

Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy.

Eric Lechevallier (E)

Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France.

Thierry Roumeguère (T)

Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Giuseppe Simone (G)

Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

Daniel Benamran (D)

Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

Alexandre Fourcade (A)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France.

Gaelle Fiard (G)

Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France.

Alexandre Peltier (A)

Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.

Classifications MeSH