Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제24권11호
  • /
  • Pages.1102-1113
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of Imaging and Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Survey From the Asian Prostate Imaging Working Group

  • Li-Jen Wang (Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, New Taipei Municipal Tucheng Hospital, Chang Gung Medical Foundation) ;
  • Masahiro Jinzaki (Department of Radiology, Keio University, School of Medicine) ;
  • Cher Heng Tan (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Health Care Group) ;
  • Young Taik Oh (Department of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hiroshi Shinmoto (Department of Radiology, National Defense Medical College) ;
  • Chau Hung Lee (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Health Care Group) ;
  • Nayana U. Patel (Department of Radiology, UNM Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico) ;
  • Silvia D. Chang (Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia) ;
  • Antonio C. Westphalen (Department of Radiology, University of Washington) ;
  • Chan Kyo Kim (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2023.07.10
  • 심사 : 2023.08.25
  • 발행 : 2023.11.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To elucidate the use of radiological studies, including nuclear medicine, and biopsy for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCA) in clinical practice and understand the current status of PCA in Asian countries via an international survey. Materials and Methods: The Asian Prostate Imaging Working Group designed a survey questionnaire with four domains focused on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), other prostate imaging, prostate biopsy, and PCA backgrounds. The questionnaire was sent to 111 members of professional affiliations in Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan who were representatives of their working hospitals, and their responses were analyzed. Results: This survey had a response rate of 97.3% (108/111). The rates of using 3T scanners, antispasmodic agents, laxative drugs, and prostate imaging-reporting and data system reporting for prostate MRI were 21.6%-78.9%, 22.2%-84.2%, 2.3%-26.3%, and 59.5%-100%, respectively. Respondents reported using the highest b-values of 800-2000 sec/mm2 and fields of view of 9-30 cm. The prostate MRI examinations per month ranged from 1 to 600, and they were most commonly indicated for biopsy-naïve patients suspected of PCA in Japan and Singapore and staging of proven PCA in Korea and Taiwan. The most commonly used radiotracers for prostate positron emission tomography are prostate-specific membrane antigen in Singapore and fluorodeoxyglucose in three other countries. The most common timing for prostate MRI was before biopsy (29.9%). Prostate-targeted biopsies were performed in 63.8% of hospitals, usually by MRI-ultrasound fusion approach. The most common presentation was localized PCA in all four countries, and it was usually treated with radical prostatectomy. Conclusion: This survey showed the diverse technical details and the availability of imaging and biopsy in the evaluation of PCA. This suggests the need for an educational program for Asian radiologists to promote standardized evidence-based imaging approaches for the diagnosis and staging of PCA.

키워드

과제정보

The authors thank the administrative support of the Korean Society of Urogenital Radiology Society, the Japanese Society of Abdominal Radiology, the Singapore Radiological Society and Taiwan Radiological Society and their certificated abdominal radiologists or councilors for their kind replies to this survey.

참고문헌

  1. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, 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;76:340-351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
  2. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
  3. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ, Turkbey B, et al. PI-RADS steering committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019;292:464-474 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946
  4. Woodrum DA, Kawashima A, Gorny KR, Mynderse LA. Targeted prostate biopsy and MR-guided therapy for prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016;41:877-888 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0681-3
  5. Eklund M, Jaderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2021;385:908-920 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
  6. Chang SD, Margolis DJA, Turkbey B, Arnold AA, Verma S. Practice patterns and challenges of performing and interpreting prostate MRI: a survey by the society of abdominal radiology prostate disease-focused panel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:952-959 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23256
  7. Arnoldner MA, Polanec SH, Lazar M, Noori Khadjavi S, Clauser P, Potsch N, et al. Rectal preparation significantly improves prostate imaging quality: assessment of the PIQUAL score with visual grading characteristics. Eur J Radiol 2022;147:110145
  8. Chang CB, Lin YC, Wong YC, Lin SN, Lin CY, Lin YH, et al. IVIM parameters on MRI could predict ISUP risk groups of prostate cancers on radical prostatectomy. Front Oncol 2021;11:659014
  9. Jadvar H. Is there use for FDG-PET in prostate cancer? Semin Nucl Med 2016;46:502-506 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.004
  10. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988;168:497-505
  11. Lindenberg L, Ahlman M, Turkbey B, Mena E, Choyke P. Advancement of MR and PET/MR in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2016;46:536-543 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.001
  12. Shinmoto H, Tamura C, Soga S, Shiomi E, Yoshihara N, Kaji T, et al. An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:W496-W500 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8347
  13. Ward RD, Purysko AS. Beyond the AJR: biparametric MRI-based prostate cancer screening-a cost-effective alternative to PSA screening and standard biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;221:389
  14. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH, Moon MH. Head-to-head comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211:W226-W241 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.19880
  15. Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, Taneja SS, Margolis DJ, Rosenkrantz AB. A comparison of radiologists' and urologists' opinions regarding prostate MRI reporting: results from a survey of specialty societies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:101-107 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241
  16. Rajiah P. Dual-energy computed tomography in thoracic imaging-current practices and utility: survey of the society of thoracic radiology. J Thorac Imaging 2020;35:W43-W50 https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000450
  17. Lewis S, Ganti A, Argiriadi P, Rosen A, Hectors S, Semaan S, et al. Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 2022;22:15
  18. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, Costa D, Renard-Penna R, Kim CK, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1: a critical review, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:20-32 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24495
  19. Cha SY, Kim E, Park SY. Why is a b-value range of 1500-2000 s/mm(2) optimal for evaluating prostatic index lesions on synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging? Korean J Radiol 2021;22:922-930 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0836
  20. Valerio M, Zini C, Fierro D, Giura F, Colarieti A, Giuliani A, et al. 3T multiparametric MRI of the prostate: does intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging have a role in the detection and stratification of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone? Eur J Radiol 2016;85:790-794 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.006
  21. Hao S, Discacciati A, Eklund M, Heintz E, Ostensson E, Elfstrom KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging or standard biopsy based on the STHLM3-MRI study. JAMA Oncol 2022;9:88-94 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252
  22. Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Connor MJ, Day E, Evans M, Fiorentino F, et al. Population-based prostate cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography: the IP1- PROSTAGRAM study. JAMA Oncol 2021;7:395-402 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7456
  23. de Rooij M, Israel B, Barrett T, Giganti F, Padhani AR, Panebianco V, et al. Focus on the quality of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: synopsis of the ESUR/ ESUI recommendations on quality assessment and interpretation of images and radiologists' training. Eur Urol 2020;78:483-485 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.023
  24. Barrett T, Padhani AR, Patel A, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Bardgett H, et al. Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int 2021;127:304-306 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15285
  25. Sartoretti E, Sartoretti T, Binkert C, Najafi A, Schwenk A, Hinnen M, et al. Reduction of procedure times in routine clinical practice with compressed SENSE magnetic resonance imaging technique. PLoS One 2019;14:e0214887
  26. Suh M, Ryoo HG, Kang KW, Jeong JM, Jeong CW, Kwak C, et al. Phase I clinical trial of prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeting (68)Ga-NGUL PET/CT in healthy volunteers and patients with prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:911-920 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2022.0176
  27. Futterer JJ, Nagarajah J. Research highlight: (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging for pelvic nodal metastasis in prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:293-294 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0938
  28. Tseng JR, Yu KJ, Liu FY, Yang LY, Hong JH, Yen TC, et al. Comparison between (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Formos Med Assoc 2021;120(1 Pt 3):688-696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2020.07.029
  29. Lee MS, Moon MH, Kim CK, Park SY, Choi MH, Jung SI, et al. Guidelines for transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: Korean Society of Urogenital Radiology consensus statement for patient preparation, standard technique, and biopsy-related pain management. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:422-430 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0576
  30. Tooker GM, Truong H, Pinto PA, Siddiqui MM. National survey of patterns employing targeted MRI/US guided prostate biopsy in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Urol 2019;12:97-103 https://doi.org/10.1159/000489426
  31. Park JJ, Kim CK. Paradigm shift in prostate cancer diagnosis: pre-biopsy prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:625-637 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2022.0059
  32. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Yamashita T, Egashira N, et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 2008;248:531-539 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482070157
  33. Bradley SH, Funston G, Jones D, Watson J. Diagnosing prostate cancer in asymptomatic patients. BMJ 2022;377:e071076