Advertisement

Impact of Multiparametric MRI and PSA Density on the Initial Indication or the Maintaining in Active Surveillance During Follow-Up in low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Published:January 31, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.015

      Abstract

      Introduction

      A greater selection of candidates for active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa) may decrease the rate of delayed treatment. We aimed to study: 1) the impact of MRI and PSA density (PSAd) at baseline on the final status, and 2) the impact of bio-clinical features during the follow-up on pursuing AS.

      Materials and Methods

      This retrospective, monocentric study between June 2013 and July 2020, included 99 patients in AS (median follow-up: 19 months [18-92]). All MRI were reviewed by a single radiologist. Lost to follow-up were 17 patients and 6 patients chose treatment by themselves. Treatment was proposed in case of upgrading (≥ GG2) or increasing PCa volume.

      Results

      Impact of MRI and PSAd at baseline:  Combining PSAd ≤ 0.15 and PIRADS ≤ 3, the probability to remain in AS was 72%. This rate reached 83% when PSAd ≤ 0.10 was associated to normal MRI.  During follow-up:  One hundred fifty-seven prostatic biopsies (PBx) were performed and 38 (24%) found PCa upgrading. The association between negative MRI and PSAd ≤ 0.10, during follow-up, had an excellent NPV to predict treatment (95%). This combination concerned 25% (37/151) of surveillance biopsies that could have been avoided at the cost of delaying upgrading in 3% (1/37). In multivariate analysis, only PIRADS ≥ 4 before PBx was associated to a risk of treatment during follow-up (OR, 10.4 [95% CI, 4.2-25.8]; P < .0001).

      Conclusion

      Using PSAd and MRI at baseline to select patients showed excellent performances to predict the maintenance in AS. During follow-up, MRI PIRADS ≥ 4 was associated to an increased risk of treatment.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mottet N
        • van den Bergh RCN
        • Briers E
        • et al.
        EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.
        Eur Urol. 2021; 79: 243-262https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
        • Alam R
        • Carter HB
        • Epstein JI
        • Tosoian JJ.
        Active surveillance of prostate cancer: Current state of practice and utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
        Rev Urol. 2017; 19: 77-88https://doi.org/10.3909/riu0757
        • Vernooij RW
        • Lancee M
        • Cleves A
        • Dahm P
        • Bangma CH
        • Aben KK.
        Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; (Cochrane Urology Group, ed.) (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3
        • Hoffman KE
        • Penson DF
        • Zhao Z
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes through 5 years for active surveillance, surgery, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation with or without androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2020; 323: 149https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.20675
        • Hamdy FC
        • Donovan JL
        • Lane JA
        • et al.
        10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415-1424https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
        • Simpkin AJ
        • Tilling K
        • Martin RM
        • et al.
        Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 993-1005https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.004
        • Ahmad AE
        • Richard PO
        • Leão R
        • et al.
        Does time spent on active surveillance adversely affect the pathological and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing delayed radical prostatectomy?.
        J Urol. 2020; 204: 476-482https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001070
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
        • Fourcade A
        • Payrard C
        • Tissot V
        • et al.
        The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
        Scand J Urol. 2018; 52: 174-179https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2018.1438509
        • Dieffenbacher S
        • Nyarangi-Dix J
        • Giganti F
        • et al.
        Standardized Magnetic resonance imaging reporting using the prostate cancer radiological estimation of change in sequential evaluation criteria and magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion with transperineal saturation biopsy to select men on active surveillance.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7: 102-110https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.001
        • Mamawala MK
        • Meyer AR
        • Landis PK
        • et al.
        Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance: Utility of mpMRI in risk stratification for AS.
        BJU Int. 2020; 125: 861-866https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15033
        • Lam TBL
        • MacLennan S
        • Willemse PPM
        • 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: 790-813https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
        • Schoots IG
        • Osses DF
        • Drost FJH
        • 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: 132-144https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.29
        • Amin A
        • Scheltema MJ
        • Shnier R
        • et al.
        The magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance (MRIAS) trial: Use of baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy to reduce the frequency of surveillance prostate biopsies.
        J Urol. 2020; 203: 910-917https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000693
        • Klotz L
        • Loblaw A
        • Sugar L
        • et al.
        Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): Results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 300-309https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025
        • Luiting HB
        • Remmers S
        • et al.
        • the PRIAS consortium
        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.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00343-2
        • Bokhorst LP
        • Lepistö I
        • Kakehi Y
        • et al.
        Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study.
        BJU Int. 2016; 118: 366-371https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13410
        • Fujihara A
        • Iwata T
        • Shakir A
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging facilitates reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2020; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15272
        • Distler FA
        • Radtke JP
        • Bonekamp D
        • et al.
        The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADSTM for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction.
        J Urol. 2017; 198: 575-582https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.130
        • Schwen ZR
        • Mamawala M
        • Tosoian JJ
        • et al.
        Prostate Health Index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict prostate cancer grade reclassification in active surveillance: PHI+mpMRI to predict grade reclassification in AS.
        BJU Int. 2020; 126: 373-378https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15101
        • Roscigno M
        • Stabile A
        • Lughezzani G
        • et al.
        The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for follow-up of patients included in active surveillance protocol. Can PSA density discriminate patients at different risk of reclassification?.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18: e698-e704https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
        • Shapiro DD
        • Gregg JR
        • Lim AH
        • et al.
        Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.
        BJU Int. 2021; 127: 340-348https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15100
        • Washington SL
        • Baskin AS
        • Ameli N
        • et al.
        MRI-Based prostate-specific antigen density predicts gleason score upgrade in an active surveillance cohort.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214: 574-578https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21559
        • Soeterik TFW
        • van Melick HHE
        • Dijksman LM
        • Biesma DH
        • Witjes JA
        • van Basten JPA.
        Active surveillance for prostate cancer in a real-life cohort: Comparing outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible patients.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1: 231-237https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.015
        • Wang AZ
        • Oonnor LP
        • Yerram NK
        • et al.
        PI-RADS® category as a predictor of progression to unfavorable risk prostate cancer in men on active surveillance.
        J Urol. 2020; 204: 1229-1235https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001307
        • Stavrinides V
        • Giganti F
        • Trock B
        • et al.
        Five-year outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging–based active surveillance for prostate cancer: A large cohort study.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 78: 443-451https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.035
        • Kim H
        • Pak S
        • Park KJ
        • et al.
        Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with PI-RADS, Version 2, in Patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance: Which radiologic characteristics can predict unfavorable disease?.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18: 50-55https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.09.018
        • Chesnut GT
        • Vertosick EA
        • Benfante N
        • 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: 501-507https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.009
        • Sanguedolce F
        • Petralia G
        • Sokhi H
        • et al.
        Baseline multiparametric mri for selection of prostate cancer patients suitable for active surveillance: Which features matter?.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018; 16: 155-163.e6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.020