» Articles » PMID: 38298772

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study

Abstract

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring.

Objective: To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%.

Design Setting And Participants: PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables.

Results And Limitations: The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen ( < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5;  = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score ( = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score ( = 0.009), previous negative biopsy ( = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 ( = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up.

Conclusions: MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC.

Patient Summary: We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.

Citing Articles

MRI characteristics predict risk of pathological upgrade in patients with ISUP grade group 1 prostate cancer.

Boschheidgen M, Schimmoller L, Radtke J, Kastl R, Jannusch K, Lakes J Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39269474 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11062-2.


Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance?.

Dias A, Woo S, Leni R, Rajwa P, Kasivisvanathan V, Ghai S Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(12):7716-7727.

PMID: 38965093 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10863-9.

References
1.
Moore C, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A . Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(4):648-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011. View

2.
Baboudjian M, Breda A, Rajwa P, Gallioli A, Gondran-Tellier B, Sanguedolce F . Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022; 5(6):617-627. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.07.004. View

3.
Hoeks C, Somford D, van Oort I, Vergunst H, Oddens J, Smits G . Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol. 2013; 49(3):165-72. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000008. View

4.
Giganti F, Pecoraro M, Stavrinides V, Stabile A, Cipollari S, Sciarra A . Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2019; 30(4):2082-2090. PMC: 7062656. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06557-2. View

5.
Luiting H, Remmers S, Boeve E, Valdagni R, Chiu P, Semjonow A . A Multivariable Approach Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Avoid a Protocol-based Prostate Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-Data from the International Multicenter Prospective PRIAS Study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022; 5(6):651-658. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.03.007. View