Literature DB >> 35939081

Validating the screening criteria for bone metastases in treatment-naïve unfavorable intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer - the prevalence and location of bone- and lymph node metastases.

Erik Rud1, Daniyal Noor2, Kristina Flor Galtung2,3, Fredrik Ottosson4, Maciej Jacewicz3,4, Eduard Baco3,4, Peter Mæhre Lauritzen2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends a bone scan for newly diagnosed unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. We aimed to validate the screening criteria for bone metastases in patients with treatment-naïve prostate cancer.
METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included all patients with treatment-naïve unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. All underwent MRI of the lumbar column (T2Dixon) and pelvis (3DT2w, DWI, and T2 Dixon). The presence and location of lymph node and bone metastases were registered according to risk groups and radiological (rad) T-stage. The risk of lymph node metastases was assessed by odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS: We included 390 patients, of which 68% were high-risk and 32% were unfavorable intermediate-risk. In the high-risk group, the rate of regional- and non-regional lymph node metastases was 11% and 6%, respectively, and the rate of bone metastases was 10%. In the unfavorable intermediate-risk group, the rate of regional- and non-regional lymph node metastases was 4% and 0.8%, respectively, and the rate of bone metastases was 0.8%. Metastases occurred exclusively in the lumbar column in 0.5% of all patients, in the pelvis in 4%, and the pelvis and lumbar column in 3%. All patients with bone metastases had radT3-4, and patients with radT3-4 showed a four-fold increased risk of lymph node metastases (OR 4.48, 95% CI: 2.1-9.5).
CONCLUSION: Bone metastases were found in 10% with high-risk prostate cancer and 0.8% with unfavorable intermediate-risk. Therefore, we question the recommendation to screen the unfavorable intermediate-risk group for bone metastases. KEY POINTS: • The rate of bone metastases was 10% in high-risk patients and 0.8% in the unfavorable intermediate-risk group. • The rate of lymph-node metastases was 17% in high-risk patients and 5% in the unfavorable intermediate-risk group. • No bone metastases were seen in radiologically localized disease.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lymph nodes; Lymphatic metastases; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prevalence; Prostatic neoplasm

Year:  2022        PMID: 35939081     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08945-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   7.034


  39 in total

1.  Metastatic patterns of prostate cancer: an autopsy study of 1,589 patients.

Authors:  L Bubendorf; A Schöpfer; U Wagner; G Sauter; H Moch; N Willi; T C Gasser; M J Mihatsch
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  Diagnostic Efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography Compared to Conventional Imaging for Lymph Node Staging of 130 Consecutive Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Tobias Maurer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Isabel Rauscher; Michael Souvatzoglou; Bernhard Haller; Gregor Weirich; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Matthias Heck; Hubert Kübler; Ambros J Beer; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  THE FUNCTION OF THE VERTEBRAL VEINS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE SPREAD OF METASTASES.

Authors:  O V Batson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1940-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Prospective Validation of Gallium-68 Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer. Reply.

Authors:  Ludwike van Kalmthout; Arthur Braat; Bart de Keizer; Marnix Lam; Richard Meijer; Harm van Melick; Jules Lavalaye; Peter Kaldeway; Anko Kooistra; John de Klerk
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Distribution of bony metastases in prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  J Cumming; N Hacking; J Fairhurst; D Ackery; J D Jenkins
Journal:  Br J Urol       Date:  1990-10

6.  Initial Experience of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT Imaging in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Prior to Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-11-07       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  JOURNAL CLUB: Identification of Bone Metastasis With Routine Prostate MRI: A Study of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sungmin Woo; Sang Youn Kim; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  A Comparative Study of 68Gallium-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Lymph Node Staging in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: An Initial Experience.

Authors:  Manoj Gupta; Partha S Choudhury; Dibyamohan Hazarika; Sudhir Rawal
Journal:  World J Nucl Med       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

10.  The prevalence and locations of bone metastases using whole-body MRI in treatment-naïve intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Fredrik Ottosson; Eduard Baco; Peter M Lauritzen; Erik Rud
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.