Combination of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies is not enough for identifying patients eligible for hemiablative focal therapy for prostate cancer
To evaluate focal therapy (hemiablation) eligibility in men undergoing prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with reference to histopathology from radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.
Subjects were selected among 810 men who underwent prostate biopsy, mpMRI, and RP from January 2016 to December 2017. Hemiablation eligibility criteria were biopsy-proven unilateral cancer, prostate-specific antigen ≤ 15 ng/ml, and Gleason score (GS) ≤ 3 + 4. Evidence of non-organ-confined disease or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥ 4 on the contralateral lobe on mpMRI was classified as ineligible for hemiablation. Of the 810, data for 185 who met the screening criteria were compared to final pathology findings. Significant cancer at RP was defined as any of the following: (1) GS 6 with tumor volume ≥ 0.5 ml; (2) GS ≥ 3 + 4; or (3) the presence of advanced stage (≥ pT3).
Among the 185 candidates for hemiablation, 62 (33.5%) had unilateral cancer on final RP histopathology. Among the 123 bilateral cancers, 50 (27%) were organ confined and had GS ≤ 3 + 4 = 7 and bilateral multifocal tumor in which the index tumor was confined to one lobe and the secondary tumor in the contralateral lobe had tumor volume < 0.5 ml and GS ≤ 6. A total of 112 (60.5%) patients in this series were considered suitable for hemiablation. Significant cancer on biopsy and mpMRI-negative lobes were found in 72 (38.9%) of 185 lobes, including 1 (0.5%) with advanced stage.
The combination of standard prostate biopsy and mpMRI did not accurately identify lobes that could be considered as non-treated regions.
KeywordsFocal therapy Hemiablation Magnetic resonance imaging Prostate biopsy Prostate cancer
YH Choi: data analysis, manuscript writing and editing, JW Yu: data collection and analysis, MY Kang: data analysis, HH Sung: data analysis, BC Jeong: data collection and management, SI Seo: data collection and management, SS Jeon: data collection and management, HM Lee: data analysis, HG Jeon: project development, data analysis, and supervision.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 3.Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW, de Bruin DM, Feller J, Futterer JJ, George AK, Gupta RT, Kahmann F, Kastner C, Laguna MP, Natarajan S, Rais-Bahrami S, Rastinehad AR, de Reijke TM, Salomon G, Stone N, van Velthoven R, Villani R, Villers A, Walz J, Polascik TJ, de la Rosette J (2017) Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 35:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, Johansen TB, Brausi M, Emberton M, Frauscher F, Greene D, Harisinghani M, Haustermans K, Heidenreich A, Kovacs G, Mason M, Montironi R, Mouraviev V, de Reijke T, Taneja S, Thuroff S, Tombal B, Trachtenberg J, Wijkstra H, Polascik T (2010) Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol 24:775–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, Eggener SE, Gill IS, Joniau S, Kovacs G, Pahernik S, de la Rosette JJ, Rouviere O, Salomon G, Ward JF, Scardino PT (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65:1078–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Coleman JA, Dominguez-Escrig J, Ghai S, Huang J, Jones JS, Klotz LH, Robertson CN, Sanchez-Salas R, Scionti S, Sivaraman A, de la Rosette J, Polascik TJ (2017) Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20:294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA (2013) Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 112:1080–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, Malavaud B (2012) Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 62:986–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Tran M, Thompson J, Bohm M, Pulbrook M, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Haynes AM, Savdie R, Stricker PD (2016) Combination of multiparametric MRI and transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate to identify candidates for hemi-ablative focal therapy. BJU Int 117:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.van der Poel HG, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Cornford P, Govorov A, Henry AM, Lam TB, Mason MD, Rouviere O, De Santis M, Willemse PM, van Poppel H, Mottet N (2018) Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol 74(1):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, Tanaka H, Kumagai J, Yoshida S, Koga F, Masuda H, Kawakami S, Fujii Y, Kihara K (2014) Combination of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and extended prostate biopsy predicts lobes without significant cancer: application in patient selection for hemiablative focal therapy. Eur Urol 65:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rischmann P, Gelet A, Riche B, Villers A, Pasticier G, Bondil P, Jung JL, Bugel H, Petit J, Toledano H, Mallick S, Rouviere O, Rabilloud M, Tonoli-Catez H, Crouzet S (2017) Focal high intensity focused ultrasound of unilateral localized prostate cancer: a prospective multicentric hemiablation study of 111 patients. Eur Urol 71:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar