New trends in prostate cancer diagnostics
Authors:
O. Příman; Š. Veselý; M. Babjuk
Authors place of work:
Urologická klinika 2. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy a Fakultní nemocnice v Motole, Praha
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2022, roč. 101, č. 3, s. 101-107.
Category:
Review
doi:
https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2022.101.3.101–107
Summary
The ever-increasing incidence of prostate cancer is driving research and clinicians‘ efforts to manage the disease more precisely. Leaving aside the progress we are making in the field of prostate cancer treatment, we can notice the pressure on accurate diagnosis in everyday practice. We often meet patients who are in the so-called gray zone and we are not sure whether to indicate a prostate biopsy or continue to monitor the patient. For diagnostics, we use a number of more or less proven methods that we have at our disposal. No clinical urologist wants to send their patient for a prostate biopsy unnecessarily. However, if the patient is finally planned for a prostate biopsy, there is no 100% certainty that we will detect the cancer. For this reason, there is an effort to develop other methods that would refine the collection of histological material and thus increase the capture of those patients who need treatment. The aim of this review is to show modern approaches to diagnostics and outline the direction in which diagnostics will go in the coming years.
Keywords:
prostate cancer – oncomarkers – prostate biopsy – diagnostics – imaging methods
Zdroje
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan– Feb;66(1):7−30. doi:10.3322/caac.21332.
2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized rostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Jan 18;104(2):125−132. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr500.
3. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027−2035. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0.
4. Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, et al. Prostate- specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med. 1987 Oct 8;317(15):909−916. doi:10.1056/NEJM198710083171501.
5. Jansen FH, van Schaik RH, Kurstjens J, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol. 2010 Jun;57(6):921−927. doi:10.1016/j.eururo. 2010.02.003.
6. Guazzoni G, Nava L, Lazzeri M, et al. Prostate- specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA significantly improves the prediction of prostate cancer at initial extended prostate biopsies in patients with total PSA between 2.0 and 10 ng/ml: results of a prospective study in a clinical setting. Eur Urol. 2011 Aug;60(2):214−222. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.052.
7. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, et al. A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1650−1655. doi:10.1016/j. juro.2010.12.032.
8. Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, et al. Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol. 2013 Jun;63(6):986−994. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.01.011.
9. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Aus G, et al. A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European randomized study of prostate cancer screening in Göteborg, Sweden. BMC Med. 2008 Jul 8;6:19. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-19.
10. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. 978- 94-92671-13-4. Publisher: EAU Guidelines Office. Place published: Arnhem, The Netherlands.
11. Nicholson A, Mahon J, Boland A, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PROGENSA® prostate cancer antigen 3 assay and the Prostate Health Index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 2015 Oct;19(87). doi:10.3310/hta19870.
12. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of PCA3 to detect prostate cancer in men with increased prostate specific antigen: a prospective study of 1,962 cases. J Urol. 2012 Nov;188(5):1726−1731. doi:10.1016/j. juro.2012.07.023.
13. Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG plus PCA3 for individualized prostate cancer risk assessment. Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):45−53. doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2015.04.039.
14. Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, et al. Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker- based risk score. Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):740−748. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo. 2016.04.012.
15. McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, O‘Neill V, et al. A novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jul 1;2(7):882−889. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol. 2016.0097.
16. Wyatt AW, Azad AA, Volik SV, et al. Genomic alterations in cell-free DNA and enzalutamide resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Dec 1;2(12):1598−1606. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol. 2016.0494.
17. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014 Sep;66(3):550−560. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004.
18. Crawford ED, Scholz MC, Kar AJ, et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Jun;30(6):1025−1031. doi:10.1185/ 03007995.2014.899208.
19. Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel. BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(7):942−948. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11072.x.
20. Wysock JS, Xu A, Orczyk C, et al. HistoScanningTM to detect and characterize prostate cancer − a review of existing literature. Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Oct 24;18(12):97. doi: 10.1007/s11934-017- 0747-y.
21. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):2019−2029. doi: 10.1007/ s00330-013-2795-0.
22. Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 2018 Jan;286(1):186−195. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017152877.
23. Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA, et al. Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):712−720. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo. 2018.11.031.
24. Barkovich EJ, Shankar PR, Westphalen AC. A systematic review of the existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) literature and subset meta-analysis of PI-RADSv2 categories stratified by Gleason scores. American Journal of Roentgenology 2019;212:847−854. doi: 10.2214/ AJR.18.20571.
25. Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, et al. Factors influencing variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: A systematic literature review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Apr;3(2):145−167. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005.
26. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging − reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16−40. doi:10.1016/j. eururo.2015.08.052.
27. 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 Sep;76(3):340−351. doi:10.1016/j.eururo. 2019.02.033.
28. Farrell C, Noyes SL, Joslin J, et al. BR prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging program implementation and impact: Initial clinical experience in a community based health system. Urology Practice 2018; 5(3):165−171. doi:10.1016/j.urpr.2017.03.009.
29. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. The institutional learning curve of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy: Temporal improvements in cancer detection in 4 years. The Journal of Urology 2018; 200(5):1022−1029. doi:10.1016/j. juro.2018.06.012.
30. Raeside M, Low A, Cohen P, et al. Prostate MRI evolution in clinical practice: Audit of tumour detection and staging versus prostatectomy with staged introduction of multiparametric MRI and prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 reporting. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 Aug;63(4):487−494. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12878.
31. Shaish H, Feltus W, Steinman J, et al. Impact of a structured reporting template on adherence to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 and on the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 May;15(5):749−754. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.034.
32. Niaf E, Lartizien C, Bratan F, et al. Prostate focal peripheral zone lesions: characterization at multiparametric MR imaging--influence of a computer-aided diagnosis system. Radiology 2014 Jun;271(3):761−769. doi:10.1148/radiol. 14130448.
33. Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, et al. Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol. 2015 Nov;25(11):3187−3199. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3743-y.
34. Ghosh A, Heston WD. Tumor target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem. 2004 Feb 15;91(3):528−539. doi:10.1002/jcb.10661.
35. Eiber M, Fendler WP, Rowe SP, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands for imaging and therapy. J Nucl Med. 2017 Sep;58(Suppl 2):67S−76S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.186767.
36. Giesel FL, Sterzing F, Schlemmer HP, et al. Intra-individual comparison of (68) Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT and multi-parametric MR for imaging of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016 Jul;43(8):1400-6. doi:10.1007/s00259- 016-3346-0.
37. Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and Gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jun;44(6):941−949. doi:10.1007/s00259- 017-3631-6.
38. Stejskal J, Jašková V, Pavličko A, et al. Diagnostika karcinomu prostaty pomocí fúzní biopsie. Ces Urol. 2018;22(2):87−98.
39. Zalesky M, Stejskal J, Minarik I, et al. Porovnání detekce signifikantního a nesignifikantního karcinomu pomocí systematické a cilené fuzní MRI/TRUS biopsie prostaty. Ces Urol. 2018; 22(2):115−121.
40. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):418−425. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006.
41. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876−892. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049.
42. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2008 Fall;10(4):262−280.
43. Čapoun O, Sobotka R, Macek P, et al. Predictive factors for prostate cancer detection using saturation prostate. Ces Urol. 2012;16(3):163−170.
44. Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019 Jun;201(6):1121−1126. doi:10.1097/ JU.0000000000000156.
45. Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Sep;20(3):311−317. doi:10.1038/pcan.2017.13.
46. Marra G, Marquis A, Tappero S, et al. Transperineal free-hand mpMRI fusion-targeted biopsies under local anesthesia: Technique and feasibility from a single- center prospective study. Urology 2020 Jun;140:122−131. doi:10.1016/j. urology.2019.11.078.
47. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Sepsis and ‚superbugs‘: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014 Sep;114(3):384−388. doi:10.1111/ bju.12536.
48. Marra G, Zhuang J, Marquis A, et al. Pain in men undergoing transperineal free-hand multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted biopsies under local anesthesia: Outcomes and predictors from a multicenter study of 1,008 patients. J Urol. 2020 Dec;204(6):1209−1215. doi:10.1097/ JU.0000000000001234.
49. Togo Y, Kubo T, Taoka R, et al. Occurrence of infection following prostate biopsy procedures in Japan: Japanese Research Group for Urinary Tract Infection (JRGU) – A multi-center retrospective study. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 2014;20(4):232−237, doi:10.1016/j. jiac.2013.10.003.
50. Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, et al. Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 4;8(14):23322−23336. doi:10.18632/oncotarget. 15056.
51. Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Oct;17(5):e860−e870. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.006.
52. Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection-comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches. Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;38(8):650−660. doi:10.1016/j. urolonc.2020.04.005.
53. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb 13;17(1):31. doi:10.1186/ s12957-019-1573-0.
54. Rai BP, Mayerhofer C, Somani BK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transperineal versus magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy − a systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Jan 18;S2588−9311(21)00002-X. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.012.
55. Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2012 Mar;14(2):310−315. doi:10.1038/aja.2011.130.
56. Guo L-H, Wu R, Xu H-X, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: A prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):16089.
57. Meyer AR, Mamawala M, Winoker JS, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer among men on active surveillance. J Urol. 2021 Apr;205(4):1069−1074. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001523.
58. Storz E, Shah A, Zettinig O, et al. 217 PSMA- PET/MRI-guided transrectal fusion biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. European Urology Supplements. 2015;14:e217. doi:10.1016/S1569- 9056(15)60217-2.
59. Novák V, Veselý Š. PSA a jeho izoformy jako moderní markery karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol. 2019;23(3):194−202.
60. Sedláčková H, Dolejšová O, Pitra T, et al. Možnosti využití ligandů prostatického specifického membránového antigenu (PSMA) v diagnostice a léčbě karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol. 2020;24(4):247−260.
61. Stejskal J, Hanáček V, Adamcová V, et al. Transperineální biopsie v diagnostice karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol. 2021;25(2):94−105.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2022 Číslo 3
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole vs. Tramadol in Postoperative Analgesia
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- New trends in prostate cancer diagnostics
- Occult breast cancer: a case report and current management of treatment
- Penile amputation for sarcoma
- Risk of biochemical recurrence in patients with a positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy