Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION Active surveillance monitoring of prostate cancer is unique in that most patients have low-grade disease that is not well-visualized by any common imaging technique. High-resolution (29 MHz) micro-ultrasound is a new, real-time modality that has been demonstrated to be sensitive to significant prostate cancer and effective for biopsy targeting. This study compares micro-ultrasound imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in active surveillance. METHODS Nine patients on active surveillance were imaged with multiparametric (mp) MRI prior to biopsy. During the biopsy procedure, imaging and target identification was first performed using conventional ultrasound, then using micro-ultrasound. The mpMRI report was then unblinded and used to determine cognitive fusion targets. Using micro-ultrasound, biopsy samples were taken from targets in each modality, plus 12 systematic samples. RESULTS mpMRI and micro-ultrasound both demonstrated superior sensitivity to Gleason sum 7 or higher cancer compared to conventional ultrasound (p=0.02 McNemar's test). Micro-ultrasound detected 89% of clinically significant cancer, compared to 56% for mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS Micro-ultrasound may provide similar sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer as mpMRI and visualize all significant mpMRI targets. Unlike mpMRI, micro-ultrasound is performed in the office, in real-time during the biopsy procedure, and so is expected to maintain the cost-effectiveness of conventional ultrasound. Larger studies are needed before these results may be applied in a clinical setting.

[1]  Pierre Mozer,et al.  Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. , 2015, European urology.

[2]  J. Hornaday,et al.  Cancer Facts & Figures 2004 , 2004 .

[3]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40. , 2016, European urology.

[4]  K. Macura,et al.  The Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy in Active Surveillance. , 2017, European urology.

[5]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[6]  I. Tsaur,et al.  Active surveillance , 2020, Ureteroceles.

[7]  Toby C. Cornish,et al.  High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2014, Urologic oncology.

[8]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[9]  Brian Wodlinger,et al.  Assessing Cancer Risk on Novel 29 MHz Micro-Ultrasound Images of the Prostate: Creation of the Micro-Ultrasound Protocol for Prostate Risk Identification. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[11]  J. Babb,et al.  Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Global estimates of cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008 , 2013, International journal of cancer.

[13]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[14]  Manuel Sánchez-Chapado,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in Caucasian Mediterranean males: An autopsy study , 2003, The Prostate.

[15]  L. Bégin,et al.  Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2008, Cancer.

[16]  N. Salem,et al.  Is negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging really able to exclude significant prostate cancer? The real‐life experience , 2017, BJU international.

[17]  W. Isaacs,et al.  The Prostate , 2019 .

[18]  A. Levy,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Local Staging at 3-T Endorectal MR Imaging—Early Experience , 2006 .

[19]  Adam T Froemming,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. , 2016, Radiology.

[20]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[21]  Jonathan L Wright,et al.  Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? , 2007, The Canadian journal of urology.

[22]  L. Hooft,et al.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? , 2017, European urology.

[23]  J A Swets,et al.  Staging prostate cancer with MR imaging: a combined radiologist-computer system. , 1997, Radiology.

[24]  H. Hricak,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[25]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[26]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[27]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men? , 2017, European urology.