Francesco Giganti1,2, Armando Stabile3,4, Vasilis Stavrinides3,5, Elizabeth Osinibi3, Adam Retter6,3, Clément Orczyk3,5, Valeria Panebianco7, Bruce J Trock8, Alex Freeman9, Aiman Haider9, Shonit Punwani6,10, Clare Allen6, Alex Kirkham6, Mark Emberton3,5, Caroline M Moore3,5. 1. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. f.giganti@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK. f.giganti@ucl.ac.uk. 3. Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 3rd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London, W1W 7TS, UK. 4. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 7. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 8. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 9. Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. METHODS: A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. RESULTS: Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53-98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. CONCLUSIONS: Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.
OBJECTIVES: The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. METHODS: A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. RESULTS: Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53-98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. CONCLUSIONS:Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms; Urogenital neoplasms
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Stacy Loeb; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Anna Kettermann; Zhaoyong Feng; H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leonard P Bokhorst; Riccardo Valdagni; Antti Rannikko; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Tom Pickles; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Catherine M Tangen; Phyllis J Goodman; Cathee Till; Jeannette M Schenk; M Scott Lucia; Ian M Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen; Jonathan W Piper; David Mirando; Armando Stabile; Shonit Punwani; Alex Kirkham; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Liying Zhang; Monique J Roobol; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Daan Nieboer; Mieke Van Hemelrijck Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Neil McCartan; Charles Jameson; Simon R J Bott; Mathias Winkler; Giulio Gambarota; Brandon Whitcher; Ramiro Castro; Mark Emberton; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Chris H Bangma; Peter R Carroll; Michael S Leapman; Antti Rannikko; Neophytos Petrides; Mahesha Weerakoon; Leonard P Bokhorst; Monique J Roobol Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Nicola L Robertson; Yipeng Hu; Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Freeman; Dean Barratt; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Francesco Giganti; Peter Albertsen; Clare Allen; Chris Bangma; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Masoom Haider; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Laurence Klotz; Adil Ouzzane; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Antti Rannikko; Raphaele Renard-Penna; Karim Touijer; Baris Turkbey; Heinrik van Poppel; Riccardo Valdagni; Jochen Walz; Ivo Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Analena Elisa Handke; Markus Graefen; Tim Ullrich; Andreas Wibmer; Boris Alexander Hadaschik; Francesco Giganti; Lars Schimmöller; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Urologe A Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Indrani Bhattacharya; David S Lim; Han Lin Aung; Xingchen Liu; Arun Seetharaman; Christian A Kunder; Wei Shao; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Katherine J To'o; James D Brooks; Geoffrey A Sonn; Mirabela Rusu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.506