Advertisement

Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features Following Partial Gland Cryoablation

Published:January 15, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.005

      Abstract

      OBJECTIVE

      To assess the qualitative and quantitative changes on prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) following partial gland ablation (PGA) with cryotherapy and correlate with histopathology.

      METHODS

      We used 3D Slicer to generate prostate models and segment ipsilateral (treated) and contralateral peripheral and transition zones in 10 men who underwent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided PGA during 2017-2018. Pre- and post-PGA volumes of prostate segments were compared. Post-PGA mpMRI were categorized according to PI-RADS v2 and treatment response on mpMRI was assessed in a manner similar to the radiology evaluation framework following liver lesion ablation.

      RESULTS

      Median volume of ipsilateral peripheral and transition zones decreased from 10.9 mL and 13.0 mL to 7.2 mL and 10.8 mL (P = .005), respectively. Median volume of contralateral peripheral and transition zones also decreased from 12.1 mL and 12.5 mL to 9.9 mL to 10.4 mL (P = .005), respectively. Five men had clinically significant disease (Grade group ≥2) on post-PGA biopsy (3 within treatment field and 2 outside). Of the men with clinically significant prostate cancer, mpMRI revealed PI-RADS 3 lesions in 2. However, the treatment response framework did not detect residual disease.

      CONCLUSION

      PGA results in asymmetrical and significant reductions in prostate volume. Our results highlight the need for a separate assessment framework to enable standardization of the interpretation and reporting of post-PGA surveillance mpMRI. Moreover, our findings have significant implications for MRI-targeted surveillance biopsy following PGA with cryotherapy.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Valerio M
        • Cerantola Y
        • Eggener SE
        • et al.
        New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 17-34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.044
        • Dickinson L
        • Ahmed HU
        • Hindley RG
        • et al.
        Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.
        Urol Oncol. 2017; 35: 30.e9-30.e15https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.07.015
        • Tay KJ
        • Amin MB
        • Ghai S
        • et al.
        Surveillance after prostate focal therapy.
        World J Urol. 2019; 37: 397-407https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2363-y
        • Zhou SR
        • Simopoulos DN
        • Jayadevan R
        • et al.
        Use of MRI-guided biopsy for selection and follow-up of men undergoing hemi-gland cryoablation of prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2019; 126: 158-164https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.052
        • Hötker AM
        • Meier A
        • Mazaheri Y
        • et al.
        Temporal changes in MRI appearance of the prostate after focal ablation.
        Abdom Radiol. 2019; 44: 272-278https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1715-9
        • Westin C
        • Chatterjee A
        • Ku E
        • et al.
        MRI findings after MRI-guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: 595-604https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19201
        • Toth R
        • Sperling D
        • Madabhushi A
        Quantifying post- laser ablation prostate therapy changes on MRI via a domain-specific biomechanical model: preliminary findings.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0150016https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150016
        • Mustafa M
        • Delacroix S
        • Ward JF
        • Pisters L
        The feasibility and safety of repeat cryosurgical ablation of localized prostate cancer.
        World J Surg Oncol. 2015; 13: 340https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0753-9
        • Scheltema MJ
        • Chang JI
        • van den Bos W
        • et al.
        Preliminary diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect residual prostate cancer following focal therapy with irreversible electroporation.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.007
        • Turkbey B
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Haider MA
        • et al.
        Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
        • Patel NA
        • Hu JC
        • Bianco F
        Office based magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guided focal cryotherapy of prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: e1240https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.3020
        • Fedorov A
        • Beichel R
        • Kalpathy-Cramer J
        • et al.
        3D slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network.
        Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30: 1323-1341https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
        • Pieper S
        • Halle M
        • Kikinis R
        3D Slicer.
        2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Macro to Nano (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821). IEEE, 2004: 632-635https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2004.1398617
      1. CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018American College of Radiology. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS/CT-MRI-LI-RADS-v2018. Accessed 2 April 2019.

        • Falconieri G
        • Lugnani F
        • Zanconati F
        • Signoretto D
        • Di Bonito L
        Histopathology of the frozen prostate. The microscopic bases of prostatic carcinoma cryoablation.
        Pathol Res Pract. 1996; 192: 579-587https://doi.org/10.1016/S0344-0338(96)80109-9
        • Patel N
        • Cricco-Lizza E
        • Kasabwala K
        • et al.
        The role of systematic and targeted biopsies in light of overlap on magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion biopsy.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1: 263-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.009
        • Eggener SE
        • Yousuf A
        • Watson S
        • Wang S
        • Oto A
        Phase II evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 1670-1675https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.074
        • Tay KJ
        • Cheng CWS
        • Lau WKO
        • Khoo J
        • Thng CH
        • Kwek JW
        Focal therapy for prostate cancer with in-bore MR-guided focused ultrasound: two-year follow-up of a Phase I trial-complications and functional outcomes.
        Radiology. 2017; 285: 620-628https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161650
        • Grant K
        • Lindenberg ML
        • Shebel H
        • et al.
        Functional and molecular imaging of localized and recurrent prostate cancer.
        Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 40: S48-S59https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2419-6
        • Muller BG
        • van den Bos W
        • Brausi M
        • et al.
        Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: results from a Delphi consensus project.
        World J Urol. 2015; 33: 1503-1509https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1475-2
        • Padhani AR
        • Weinreb J
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Villeirs G
        • Turkbey B
        • Barentsz J
        Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 385-396https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.035
        • Bischof JC
        • Smith D
        • Pazhayannur PV
        • Manivel C
        • Hulbert J
        • Roberts KP
        Cryosurgery of dunning AT-1 rat prostate tumor: thermal, biophysical, and viability response at the cellular and tissue level.
        Cryobiology. 1997; 34: 42-69https://doi.org/10.1006/cryo.1996.1978
        • Baust JG
        • Gage AA
        • Bjerklund Johansen TE
        • Baust JM
        Mechanisms of cryoablation: clinical consequences on malignant tumors.
        Cryobiology. 2014; 68: 1-11https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2013.11.001
        • Galosi AB
        • Lugnani F
        • Muzzonigro G
        Salvage cryosurgery for recurrent prostate carcinoma after radiotherapy.
        J Endourol. 2007; 21: 1-7https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.9999
        • Moore CM
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Eggener S
        • et al.
        Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 544-552https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
        • Booker MT
        • Silva E
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        National private payer coverage of prostate MRI.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 24-29https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.07.009
        • van den Bos W
        • Muller BG
        • Ahmed H
        • et al.
        Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 1078-1083https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.001
        • Sonn GA
        • Fan RE
        • Ghanouni P
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010