Prospective close monitoring of the effect of vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and high intensity focused ultrasound of localized prostate cancer by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
Humans
Male
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Photochemotherapy
/ methods
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prospective Studies
Aged
Middle Aged
Photosensitizing Agents
/ therapeutic use
Combined Modality Therapy
Ultrasound, High-Intensity Focused, Transrectal
/ methods
Prostate
/ diagnostic imaging
High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation
/ methods
Bacteriochlorophylls
/ therapeutic use
Diffusion MRI
Focal therapy of the prostate
High intensity focused ultrasound
MRI prostate
Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
15
09
2023
accepted:
21
06
2024
medline:
1
8
2024
pubmed:
1
8
2024
entrez:
1
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to describe the anatomical and functional changes observed in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) during follow-up after focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). In this prospective study, we analyzed pre- and postoperatively acquired mpMRI of 10 patients after FT (7 days; 3, 6, 9, 12 months). 7/10 (70%) patients underwent vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP). 3/10 (30%) patients underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). MpMR image analysis was performed using a semi-automatic software for segmentation of the prostate gland (PG) and tumor zones. Signal intensities (SI) of T2-weighted (T2w), T1-weighted (T1w),diffusion-weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images as well as volumes of the prostate gland (PGV) and tumor volumes (TV) were evaluated at each time point. The results showed a significant increase of PGV 7 days after FT (p = 0.042) and a significant reduction of PGV between 7 days and 6, 9 and 12 months after FT (p < 0.001). The TV increased significantly 7 days after FT (p < 0.001) and decreased significantly between 7 days and 12 months after FT (p < 0.001). There was a significant increase in SI of the ADC in the ablation zone after 6, 9 and 12 months after FT (p < 0.001). 1/9 patients (11%) had recurrent tumor on rebiopsy characterized as a a small focal lesion on mpMRI with strong diffusion restriction (low SI on ADC map and high SI on b-value DWI). MpMRI is able to represent morphologic changes of the ablated zone after FT and might be helpful to detect recurrent tumor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39088086
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05143-6
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-05143-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Photosensitizing Agents
0
Bacteriochlorophylls
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
462Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Klotz L (2022) Overdiagnosis in urologic cancer: for world journal of urology symposium on active surveillance in prostate and renal cancer. World J Urol 40(1):1–8
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03523-2
pubmed: 33492425
Johansson JE, Adami HO, Andersson SO et al (1989) Natural history of localised prostatic cancer. A population-based study in 223 untreated patients. Lancet 1(8642):799–803
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)92269-1
pubmed: 2564901
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352(19):1977–1984
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043739
pubmed: 15888698
Adolfsson J, Tribukait B, Levitt S (2007) The 20-Yr outcome in patients with well- or moderately differentiated clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the pre-PSA era: the prognostic value of tumour ploidy and comorbidity. Eur Urol 52(4):1028–1035
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.002
pubmed: 17467883
Jonsson E, Sigbjarnarson HP, Tomasson J et al (2006) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate in Iceland: a population-based study of stage, Gleason grade, treatment and long-term survival in males diagnosed between 1983 and 1987. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40(4):265–271
doi: 10.1080/00365590600750110
pubmed: 16916765
Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF et al (2009) Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 302(11):1202–1209
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1348
pubmed: 19755699
pmcid: 2822438
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
pubmed: 27626136
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79(2):243–262
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Bates AS, Ayers J, Kostakopoulos N et al (2021) A systematic review of focal ablative therapy for clinically localised prostate cancer in comparison with standard management options: limitations of the available evidence and recommendations for clinical practice and further research. Eur Urol Oncol 4(3):405–423
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.008
pubmed: 33423943
Azzouzi AR, Vincendeau S, Barret E et al (2017) Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 18(2):181–191
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30661-1
pubmed: 28007457
Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW et al (2017) Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 35(5):695–701
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1932-1
pubmed: 27637908
Muller BG, van den Bos W, Brausi M et al (2015) Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 33(10):1503–1509
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1475-2
pubmed: 25559111
pmcid: 7721864
Rouviere 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(1):100–109
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
Nahar B, Bhat A, Reis IM et al (2020) Prospective evaluation of focal high intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 204(3):483–489
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001015
pubmed: 32167866
Ganzer R, Mangold A, Siokou FS et al (2022) Value of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy to select patients for focal therapy. World J Urol 40(11):2689–2694
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04157-2
pubmed: 36152071
Horwitz EM, Thames HD, Kuban DA et al (2005) Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. J Urol 173(3):797–802
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000152556.53602.64
pubmed: 15711272
Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(4):965–974
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
pubmed: 16798415
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 76(3):340–351
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
Giganti F, Dickinson L, Orczyk C et al (2023) Prostate imaging after focal ablation (PI-FAB): a proposal for a scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate after focal therapy. Eur Urol Oncol 6(6):629–634
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.007
pubmed: 37210343
Ahn H, Hwang SI, Lee HJ et al (2023) Diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Int 11(2):59–68
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.12.004
pubmed: 37409098
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG et al (2017) Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 35(1):30–30
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.07.015
He Y, Tan P, He M et al (2020) The primary treatment of prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 99(41):e22610
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022610
pubmed: 33031318
pmcid: 7544371
Biermann K, Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A et al (2010) Histopathological findings after treatment of prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Prostate 70(11):1196–1200
doi: 10.1002/pros.21154
pubmed: 20564422
Hötker AM, Meier A, Mazaheri Y et al (2019) Temporal changes in MRI appearance of the prostate after focal ablation. Abdom Radiol 44(1):272–278
doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1715-9
Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Hoh IM et al (2008) MR imaging of prostate after treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Radiology 246(3):833–844
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2463062080
pubmed: 18223121
Ghafoor S, Becker AS, Stocker D et al (2020) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate after focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Abdom Radiol 45(11):3882–3895
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02577-5
Lotte R, Lafourcade A, Mozer P et al (2018) Multiparametric MRI for suspected recurrent prostate cancer after HIFU: is DCE still needed? Eur Radiol 28(9):3760–3769
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5352-z
pubmed: 29633004
Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 70(11):1165–1176
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
pubmed: 26231470
pmcid: 6369533
Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM et al (2008) MRI techniques for prediction of local tumor progression after high-intensity focused ultrasonic ablation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1180–1186
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2924
pubmed: 18430829
Donati OF, Jung SI, Vargas HA et al (2013) Multiparametric prostate MR imaging with T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences: are all pulse sequences necessary to detect locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy? Radiology 268(2):440–450
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122149
pubmed: 23481164
Noweski A, Roosen A, Lebdai S et al (2019) Medium-term follow-up of vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy of localized prostate cancer using TOOKAD soluble WST-11 (phase II trials). Eur Urol Focus 5(6):1022–1028
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.04.003
pubmed: 29661587
Flegar L, Buerk B, Proschmann R et al (2022) Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy in unilateral low-risk prostate cancer in Germany: 2-yr single-centre experience in a real-world setting compared with radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 8(1):121–127
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.01.018
pubmed: 33602642