Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 32 (2014) 509–510

Letter to Editor Multiparametric magnetic resonance imagingultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: role in diagnosis and management of prostatic cancer To the Editor: We have read with great interest the review article by Sonn et al. [1] in the November 2013 issue of Urologic Oncology. We agree with the article content, but we believe that the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (mpMRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy, in the various steps of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and management, should be further outlined. The PCa aggressiveness stratification includes 3 groups of different risk: low, intermediate, and high risk. The most common clinical data used to define low-risk PCa include the following: Gleason score r6 (no disease pattern 4 or 5), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level o10 ng/ml, clinical T1 or T2a clinical category disease, PSA kinetics (stable) before diagnosis, PSA density o0.15 ng/ml/cm3, percentage of positive cores at biopsy o33%, and the extent of cancer in any cores o50% [2]. Active surveillance (AS) is a new strategy that aims to individualize therapy by selecting only those patients with significant cancers for curative therapy, particularly those with low risk of PCa. AS includes 4 key components: identification of appropriate patients, patient education and reassurance, close monitoring over time (with serial PSA measurements, periodic biopsy, and imaging studies), and appropriate therapy for patients whose disease is reclassified as higher risk [3]. AS follow-up includes (1) PSA evaluation and digital rectal examination every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months (assuming a stable PSA), (2) confirmatory 10- to 12-core biopsy within the first year, including those of the anterolateral horn, (3) repeat biopsy every 3 to 5 years until the age of 80 years, and (4) MRI at baseline, or for borderline PSA kinetics or pathology, or both [2]. The published experience with AS of more than 2,000 patients has demonstrated that approximately one-third of patients with low-risk PCa are reclassified as higher risk for progression and are treated [3–9]. In the intermediate time frame (5–15 y), PCa mortality is exceptionally low. Biopsy sampling error is a significant limitation of AS. The anterolateral horn is a common site for disease missed on routine biopsies. Lawrentschuk and Fleshner [10], in some patients http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.02.001 1078-1439/r 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

(perhaps 20%) diagnosed with favorable risk and harboring large, high-grade cancers, identified a subset of patients either having anterior-predominant tumors with negative findings on biopsy or low-volume disease and who are on AS and should be considered for MRI and further biopsy, as their pathology might be aggressive. The authors used the term “prostatic evasive anterior tumors” and demonstrated that the use of mpMRI may increase awareness of anterior disease, facilitate surgical planning, and add information to other treatment options, including AS. Although not widely implemented, current studies report up to an 86% sensitivity and a 94% specificity of mpMRI in diagnosis of PCa, improved correlation with pathological tumor volume and decreased upgrading with anterior disease [11,12]. MpMRI of 3.0 T can be used not only for patients with high PSA levels suggestive of PCa and previously negative findings on biopsies to undergo prostate biopsy but also as the first approach for tumor detection before biopsy [13–16]. mpMRI-US fusion allows the information to be used to direct needle biopsy under US guidance, with improvement of prostate biopsy in an office-based procedure [1]. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System reported that this scoring system using multiparametric 3.0-T MRI is beneficial to indicate the likelihood of PCa of suspicious lesions on mpMRI and valuable to identify locations to be targeted with biopsy [17]. In the review by Sonn et al. [1], mpMRI is indicated to be more expensive than conventional transrectal US (TRUS) biopsy and time consuming, it requires MRIcompatible equipment and often a general anesthetic, it is not available in most hospitals, and a radiologist experienced in MRI is required. The authors do not specify which MRI images to use to achieve fusion of MRI with US to guide biopsy. In our experience, using 3.0-T pelvic phased-array with coil, in the perspective to use the mpMRI-US fusion to direct biopsy needles under US guidance as alternative to transrectal US-guided biopsy, we consider diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient maps (ADC) as the most accurate to detect suspected areas of PCa. Unfortunately, the DWI suffers from low signal-to-noise ratio, spatial resolution, or image quality. As a consequence, before fusing the US images with corresponding MR images representative of suspected foci of PCa, the choice of DWI


M. Scialpi et al. / Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 32 (2014) 509–510

images to fuse with the corresponding 3D T2-weighed, or 3DCE images is required. In conclusion, the mpMRI-US fusion-guided prostate biopsy is emerging as a potential leading imaging tool for the detection of significant PCa. It can be used as the initial diagnostic approach in the detection of intraprostatic foci suspected for PCa, particularly for prostatic evasive anterior tumors, and in the follow-up of patients with low-risk PCa with AS. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of PCa should include indications such as the role of mpMRI in staging purposes and the need of accurate standardization. Michele Scialpi, M.D.a Irene Piscioli, M.D.b Simona Malaspina, M.D.a Alfredo D'Andrea, M.D.c a

Division of Radiology, Department of Surgical, Radiologic, and Odontostomatologic Sciences, Division of Radiology 2, University of Perugia, S. Maria della Misericordia Hospital, S. Andrea delle Fratte, 06156 Perugia, Italy b Division of Radiology, Budrio Hospital, ASL Budrio, Bologna, Italy c Division of Radiology, San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Aversa, Caserta, Italy References [1] Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2013;13:1–9. [2] Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664–70. [3] Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management. Curr Oncol 2010;7:11–7. [4] van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer. Cancer J 2007;13:289–94.

[5] Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007;178:2359–64. [6] Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, et al. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer 2007;120:170–4. [7] Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, De Vries SH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 2007;51:1244–50. [8] Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008;101:165–9. [9] van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009;55:1–8. [10] Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner N. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. BJU Int 2009;103:730–3. [11] Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhancedmagnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2009;74:1094–9. [12] Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, et al. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology 2011;78:1356–62. [13] Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;59:962–77. [14] Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259:453–61. [15] Aydin H, Kizilgöz V, Tatar IG, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging: optimization of T1-weighted, T2weighted, dynamic-enhanced T1-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging apparent diffusion coefficient mapping sequences and MR spectroscopy, correlated with biopsy and histopathological findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012;36:30–45. [16] Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Borofsky MS, et al. 3.0 T multiparametric prostate MRI using pelvic phased-array coil: Utility for tumor detection prior to biopsy. Urol Oncol 2013;31:1430–5. [17] Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24:344–52.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: role in diagnosis and management of prostatic cancer.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: role in diagnosis and management of prostatic cancer. - PDF Download Free
110KB Sizes 1 Downloads 4 Views