David Bonekamp1, M B Wolf2, M C Roethke2, S Pahernik3, B A Hadaschik3, G Hatiboglu3, T H Kuru3, I V Popeneciu3, J L Chin4, M Billia4, J Relle5, J Hafron5, K R Nandalur6, R M Staruch7, M Burtnyk7, M Hohenfellner3, H-P Schlemmer2. 1. Department of Radiology (E010), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. d.bonekamp@dkfz-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Radiology (E010), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University of Western Ontario (UWO), London Health Sciences Center, Victoria Hospital, London, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Urology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA. 7. Clinical Science, Profound Medical Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess 12-month prostate volume (PV) reduction based on T2-weighted MRI and immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI non-perfused volume (NPV), and to compare measurements with predictions of acute and delayed ablation volumes based on MR-thermometry (MR-t), in a central radiology review of the Phase I clinical trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment day MRI and 12-month follow-up MRI and biopsy were available for central radiology review in 29 of 30 patients from the published institutional review board-approved, prospective, multi-centre, single-arm Phase I clinical trial of TULSA. Viable PV at 12 months was measured as the remaining PV on T2-weighted MRI, less 12-month NPV, scaled by the fraction of fibrosis in 12-month biopsy cores. Reduction of viable PV was compared to predictions based on the fraction of the prostate covered by the MR-t derived acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV, 55°C isotherm), delayed thermal ablation volume (DTAV, 240 cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C thermal dose isocontour) and treatment-day NPV. We also report linear and volumetric comparisons between metrics. RESULTS: After TULSA, the median 12-month reduction in viable PV was 88%. DTAV predicted a reduction of 90%. Treatment day NPV predicted only 53% volume reduction, and underestimated ATAV and DTAV by 36% and 51%. CONCLUSION: Quantitative volumetry of the TULSA phase I MR and biopsy data identifies DTAV (240 CEM43 thermal dose boundary) as a useful predictor of viable prostate tissue reduction at 12 months. Immediate post-treatment NPV underestimates tissue ablation. KEY POINTS: • MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) achieved an 88% reduction of viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months, in excellent agreement with expectation from thermal dose calculations. • Non-perfused volume on immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI represents only 64% of the acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV), and reports only 60% (53% instead of 88% achieved) of the reduction in viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months. • MR-thermometry-based predictions of 12-month prostate volume reduction based on 240 cumulative equivalent minute thermal dose volume are in excellent agreement with reduction in viable prostate tissue volume measured on pre- and 12-month post-treatment T2w-MRI.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess 12-month prostate volume (PV) reduction based on T2-weighted MRI and immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI non-perfused volume (NPV), and to compare measurements with predictions of acute and delayed ablation volumes based on MR-thermometry (MR-t), in a central radiology review of the Phase I clinical trial of MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) in patients with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment day MRI and 12-month follow-up MRI and biopsy were available for central radiology review in 29 of 30 patients from the published institutional review board-approved, prospective, multi-centre, single-arm Phase I clinical trial of TULSA. Viable PV at 12 months was measured as the remaining PV on T2-weighted MRI, less 12-month NPV, scaled by the fraction of fibrosis in 12-month biopsy cores. Reduction of viable PV was compared to predictions based on the fraction of the prostate covered by the MR-t derived acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV, 55°C isotherm), delayed thermal ablation volume (DTAV, 240 cumulative equivalent minutes at 43°C thermal dose isocontour) and treatment-day NPV. We also report linear and volumetric comparisons between metrics. RESULTS: After TULSA, the median 12-month reduction in viable PV was 88%. DTAV predicted a reduction of 90%. Treatment day NPV predicted only 53% volume reduction, and underestimated ATAV and DTAV by 36% and 51%. CONCLUSION: Quantitative volumetry of the TULSA phase I MR and biopsy data identifies DTAV (240 CEM43 thermal dose boundary) as a useful predictor of viable prostate tissue reduction at 12 months. Immediate post-treatment NPV underestimates tissue ablation. KEY POINTS: • MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) achieved an 88% reduction of viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months, in excellent agreement with expectation from thermal dose calculations. • Non-perfused volume on immediate post-treatment contrast-enhanced MRI represents only 64% of the acute thermal ablation volume (ATAV), and reports only 60% (53% instead of 88% achieved) of the reduction in viable prostate tissue volume at 12 months. • MR-thermometry-based predictions of 12-month prostate volume reduction based on 240 cumulative equivalent minute thermal dose volume are in excellent agreement with reduction in viable prostate tissue volume measured on pre- and 12-month post-treatment T2w-MRI.
Authors: J C Chen; J A Moriarty; J A Derbyshire; R D Peters; J Trachtenberg; S D Bell; J Doyle; R Arrelano; G A Wright; R M Henkelman; R S Hinks; S Y Lok; A Toi; W Kucharczyk Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul Ryan; Antonio Finelli; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Neil Fleshner; Joan Sweet; Carol Cheung; Theodorus van der Kwast; Andrew Evans Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Xinrui Zhang; Lisa Landgraf; Nikolaos Bailis; Michael Unger; Thies H Jochimsen; Andreas Melzer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Shayann Ramedani; Michael Daneshvar; Arvin K George; Andre Luis Abreu; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Amir H Lebastchi Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Gencay Hatiboglu; Valentin Popeneciu; David Bonekamp; Mathieu Burtnyk; Robert Staruch; Florian Distler; Jan Philipp Radtke; Johann Motsch; Heinz Peter Schlemmer; Sascha Pahernik; Joanne Nyarangi-Dix Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Fabian Tollens; Niklas Westhoff; Jost von Hardenberg; Sven Clausen; Michael Ehmann; Frank G Zöllner; Anne Adlung; Dominik F Bauer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Dominik Nörenberg Journal: Radiologe Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Mikael Anttinen; Pietari Mäkelä; Antti Viitala; Pertti Nurminen; Visa Suomi; Teija Sainio; Jani Saunavaara; Pekka Taimen; Roberto Blanco Sequeiros; Peter J Boström Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-11-25