Evaluating the Role of Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer Trial - Phase 1: Early Experience of Micro-ultrasound in the United Kingdom

Overview

Journal Ultrasound

Date 2024 Nov 4

PMID 39493923

Authors

Pamela Parker

Maureen Twiddy

Alan Rigby

Paul Whybrow

Matthew Simms

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the use of micro-ultrasound can detect clinically significant prostate pathology when compared to histology obtained during a transperineal prostate biopsy.

Methods: Patients suspected of having prostate cancer, who had a pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and could tolerate a transrectal examination, were prospectively recruited. All patients had a micro-ultrasound scan prior to their biopsy. The findings of magnetic resonance imaging, micro-ultrasound and histology were risk stratified in accordance with local pathways. Comparison of assigned risk scores was made using histology as the reference standard.

Results: Data from 101 patients were evaluated. Histology showed that clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48.5% ( = 49/101) of patients. Moderate inter-rater agreement was found in both magnetic resonance imaging and micro-ultrasound with К of 0.31 in both modalities. High-risk findings were identified in 81% ( = 82/101) patients at magnetic resonance imaging and in 66% ( = 67/101) patients at micro-ultrasound. Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging were found to be 87% and 34.6% and for micro-ultrasound 73.3% and 53.8%, respectively.

Conclusion: A limitation of this study was that the biopsy was not performed with micro-ultrasound which may have resulted in unidentified cancers and lowered the apparent accuracy of the technique. However, we conclude that while micro-ultrasound was diagnostic, magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated higher sensitivity in our local population and remains the pre-biopsy imaging modality of choice. However, the higher specificity of micro-ultrasound identified does indicate that it may be of value when magnetic resonance imaging is contraindicated. The role of micro-ultrasound, within an active surveillance pathway for prostate cancer, warrants further investigation.

References

Grummet J, Gorin M, Popert R, OBrien T, Lamb A, Hadaschik B . "TREXIT 2020": why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 23(1):62-65. PMC: 7027966. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-0204-8. View

Richenberg J, Logager V, Panebianco V, Rouviere O, Villeirs G, Schoots I . The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(12):6940-6952. PMC: 6828624. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z. View

Vargas H, Hotker A, Goldman D, Moskowitz C, Gondo T, Matsumoto K . Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(6):1606-12. PMC: 4803633. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6. View

Basso Dias A, Ghai S . Micro-Ultrasound: Current Role in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Future Possibilities. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(4). PMC: 9954149. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041280. View

Vasarainen H, Salman J, Salminen H, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Bangma C . Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS). World J Urol. 2015; 33(11):1735-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1542-3. View

Park K, Choi S, Lee J, Kim J, Kim M, Jeong I . Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer According to PI-RADS® Version 2 Categories: Meta-Analysis for Prospective Studies. J Urol. 2020; 204(6):1141-1149. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001306. View

Dalela D, Karabon P, Sammon J, Sood A, Loppenberg B, Trinh Q . Generalizability of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Results to Contemporary North American Men with Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(4):511-514. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.048. View

Kasivisvanathan V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore C . Magnetic Resonance Imaging Should Be Used in the Active Surveillance of Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019; 77(3):318-319. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.014. View

Merriel S, Hetherington L, Seggie A, Castle J, Cross W, Roobol M . Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement. BJU Int. 2019; 124(1):47-54. PMC: 6617751. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14707. View

10.

Bruinsma S, Zhang L, Roobol M, Bangma C, Steyerberg E, Nieboer D . The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date. BJU Int. 2017; 121(5):737-744. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14106. View

11.

Greer M, Shih J, Lay N, Barrett T, Bittencourt L, Borofsky S . Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212(6):1197-1205. PMC: 8268760. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20536. View

12.

Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V, Hyndman M, McGrath T, Wodlinger B . Assessing Cancer Risk on Novel 29 MHz Micro-Ultrasound Images of the Prostate: Creation of the Micro-Ultrasound Protocol for Prostate Risk Identification. J Urol. 2016; 196(2):562-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093. View

13.

Glass A, DallEra M . Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019; 124(5):730-737. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14705. View

14.

Hruby G, Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, Murphy J, DeBoer G . The role of serial transrectal ultrasonography in a 'watchful waiting' protocol for men with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2001; 87(7):643-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02133.x. View

15.

Fusco F, Emberton M, Arcaniolo D, De Nunzio C, Manfredi C, Creta M . Prostatic high-resolution micro-ultrasound: an attractive step-forward in the management of prostate cancer patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022; 26(3):521-522. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00611-9. View

16.

Eure G, Fanney D, Lin J, Wodlinger B, Ghai S . Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018; 13(3):E70-E77. PMC: 6395108. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.5361. View

17.

Dariane C, Ploussard G, Barret E, Beauval J, Brureau L, Crehange G . Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies versus systematic biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2022; 41(3):641-651. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04087-z. View

18.

Zhang M, Wang R, Wu Y, Jing J, Chen S, Zhang G . Micro-Ultrasound Imaging for Accuracy of Diagnosis in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol. 2020; 9:1368. PMC: 6914756. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01368. View

19.

Sountoulides P, Pyrgidis N, Polyzos S, Mykoniatis I, Asouhidou E, Papatsoris A . Micro-Ultrasound-Guided vs Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2021; 205(5):1254-1262. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001639. View

20.

Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Sanchez A, Pereira J, Staerman F . Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020; 15(1):E11-E16. PMC: 7769516. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6712. View