https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.92
Detection limits of significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MR and digital rectal examination in men with low serum PSA: Up-date of the Italian Society of Integrated Diagnostic in Urology
Published: March 22, 2021
Abstract Views: 1891
PDF: 952
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Reasons why significant prostate cancer is still missed in early stage were investigated at the 22nd National SIEUN (Italian Society of integrated diagnostic in Urology, Andrology, Nephrology) congress took place from 30th November to 1st December 2020, in virtual modality. Even if multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) has been introduced in the clinical practice several, limitations are emerging in patient with regular digital rectal examination (DRE) and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels approaching the normal limits. The present paper summarizes highlights observed in those cases where significant prostate cancer may be missed by PSA or imaging and DRE. The issue of multidisciplinary interest had been subdivided and deepened under four main topics: biochemical, clinical, pathological and radiological point of view with a focus on PI-RADS 3 lesions.
Cimadamore A, Cheng M, Santoni M, Lopez-Beltran A, Battelli N, Massari F, et al. New Prostate Cancer Targets for Diagnosis, Imaging, and Therapy: Focus on Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen. Front Oncol. 2018;8:653.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00653
Mottet N, Bastian P, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh R, Bolla M, van Casteren N, et al. EAU - EANM - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG: Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Eur Assoc Urol. 2020;1–182.
Lambert E, Goossens M, Palagonia E, Vollemaere J, Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P, et al. Changes in serum PSA after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate are predictive for the future diagnosis of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020 Sep;
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03444-0
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004 May;350:2239–46.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918
Maselli G, Tucci G, Mazzaferro D, Ettamimi A, Sbrollini G, Cordari M, et al. Prolonged antibiotic therapy increases risk of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy: a case report after pancreasectomy and review of the literature. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2014 ;86:387–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.4.387
Halpern JA, Oromendia C, Shoag JE, Mittal S, Cosiano MF, Ballman K V., et al. Use of Digital Rectal Examination as an Adjunct to Prostate Specific Antigen in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. J Urol [Internet]. 2018;199:947–53.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.021
Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, Bennette CJ, Björk T, Gerdtsson A, et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: Case-control study. BMJ. 2013;346.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2023
Carter HB, Ferrucci L, Kettermann A, Landis P, Wright EJ, Epstein JI, et al. Detection of life-threatening prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen velocity during a window of curability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1521–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj410
Vickers AJ, Till C, Tangen CM, Lilja H, Thompson IM. An Empirical Evaluation of Guidelines on Prostate-specific Antigen Velocity in Prostate Cancer Detection. 2011;103:0–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr028
Fandella A, Scattoni V, Galosi A, Pepe P, Fiorentino M, Gaudiano C, et al. Italian Prostate Biopsies Group: 2016 Updated Guidelines Insights. Anticancer Res. 2017 Feb;37:413–24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11333
Martino P, Galosi AB, Bitelli M, Consonni P, Fiorini F, Granata A, et al. Practical recommendations for performing ultrasound scanning in the urological and andrological fields. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2014 ;86:56–78.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.1.56
Pagniez MA, Kasivisvanathan V, Puech P, Drumez E, Villers A, Olivier J. Predictive Factors of Missed Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers in Men with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2020;204:24–32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000757
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, Pepe P, Galosi AB, Naselli A, et al. The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Follow-up of Patients Included in Active Surveillance Protocol. Can PSA Density Discriminate Patients at Different Risk of Reclassification? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Dec;18:e698–704.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
Bhat NR, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, Shetty AS, Ippolito JE, Kim EH. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Defined Prostate-Specific Antigen Density Significantly Improves the Risk Prediction for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Biopsy. Urology. 2019;126:152–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.010
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72:250–66.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Wiederkehr C, Wettstein MS, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int. 2016 ;117:401–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13314
Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi A, Grompone MD, et al. Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What’s Next? [Figure presented]. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2018;74:48–54.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
Andreoiu M, Cheng L. Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol. 2010;41:781–93.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2010.02.011
Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK, Cheng HH, Cooney KA, Cookson MS, et al. Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2798–811.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00046
Zhen JT, Syed J, Nguyen KA, Leapman MS, Agarwal N, Brierley K, et al. Genetic testing for hereditary prostate cancer: Current status and limitations. Cancer. 2018;124:3105–17.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31316
Oh M, Alkhushaym N, Fallatah S, Althagafi A, Aljadeed R, Alsowaida Y, et al. The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: A meta-analysis. Prostate. 2019;79:880–95.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23795
Castro E, Eeles R. The role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in prostate cancer. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:409–14.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.150
Raymond VM, Mukherjee B, Wang F, Huang SC, Stoffel EM, Kastrinos F, et al. Elevated risk of prostate cancer among men with lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1713–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.44.1238
Ostrander EA, Stanford JL. Genetics of prostate cancer: Too many loci, too few genes. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;67:1367–75.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/316916
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Barocas DA, Castle EP, et al. Prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2015: Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:1534–61.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2015.0181
Gasparrini S, Cimadamore A, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Massari F, Raspollini MR, et al. Pathology and molecular updates in tumors of the prostate: towards a personalized approach. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2017;17:781–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2017.1341314
Dell’Atti L, Galosi AB. Safety of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients affected by Crohn’s disease. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2017 ;89:106–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2017.2.106
Oon SF, Watson RW, O’Leary JJ, Fitzpatrick JM. Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;108:518–25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.09979.x
Mazzucchelli R, Galosi AB, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Cheng L, Montironi R. Pathological issues in biopsy specimens of men with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2014 ;86:314–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.4.314
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 ;40:244–52.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology. 2019;74:135–45.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712
Lacetera V, Cervelli B, Cicetti A, Gabrielloni G, Montesi M, Morcellini R, et al. MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy: Our initial experience. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2016 ;88:296–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.4.296
Galosi AB, Maselli G, Sbrollini G, Donatelli G, Montesi L, Tallè M, et al. Cognitive zonal fusion biopsy of the prostate: Original technique between target and saturation. Arch Ital di Urol Androl organo Uff [di] Soc Ital di Ecogr Urol e Nefrol. 2016 ;88:292–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.4.292
Cimadamore A, Scarpelli M, Raspollini MR, Doria A, Galosi AB, Massari F, et al. Prostate cancer pathology: What has changed in the last 5 years. Urologia. 2020 ;87::3–10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0391560319876821
Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R, Burattini L, Berardi R, Galosi AB, et al. Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16:433–40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2016.1160780
Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R, Epstein JI. Contemporary Gleason grading and novel Grade Groups in clinical practice. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26:488–92.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000320
Kamoun A, Cancel-Tassin G, Fromont G, Elarouci N, Armenoult L, Ayadi M, et al. Comprehensive molecular classification of localized prostate adenocarcinoma reveals a tumour subtype predictive of non-aggressive disease. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1814–21.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy224
Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, Krech T, Wittmer C, Lutz F, et al. Clinical utility of quantitative gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):592–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
Hollemans E, Verhoef EI, Bangma CH, Rietbergen J, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, et al. Large cribriform growth pattern identifies ISUP grade 2 prostate cancer at high risk for recurrence and metastasis. Mod Pathol [Internet]. 2019;32:139–46.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-018-0157-9
Roberts JA, Zhou M, Park YW, Ro JY. Intraductal carcinoma of prostate: A comprehensive and concise review. Korean J Pathol. 2013;47:307–15.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2013.47.4.307
Zong Y, Montironi R, Massari F, Jiang Z, Lopez-Beltran A, Wheeler TM, et al. Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: Pathogenesis and Molecular Perspectives. Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Oct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.007
Porter LH, Lawrence MG, Ilic D, Clouston D, Bolton DM, Frydenberg M, et al. Systematic Review Links the Prevalence of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate to Prostate Cancer Risk Categories. Eur Urol. 2017 ;72:492–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.013
Silva MM da J, Matheus WE, Garcia PV, Stopiglia RM, Billis A, Ferreira U, et al. Characterization of reactive stroma in prostate cancer: involvement of growth factors, metalloproteinase matrix, sexual hormones receptors and prostatic stem cells. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41:849–58.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0355
Wang W, Epstein JI. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. A morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 95 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 ;32:65–71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318058a96b
Abouhashem NS, Salah S. Differential expression of NKX 3.1 and HOXB 13 in bone metastases originating from prostatic carcinoma among the Egyptian males. Pathol Res Pract. 2020 ;216:153221.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2020.153221
Paner GP, Aron M, Hansel DE, Amin MB. Non-epithelial neoplasms of the prostate. Histopathology. 2012;60:166–86.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04020.x
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet [Internet]. 2017;389:815–22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:100–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA, Kwan L, Bajgiran AM, Hsu W, et al. Detection of Individual Prostate Cancer Foci via Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2019;75:712–20.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031
Galosi AB, Dell’Atti L, Bertaccini A, Gion M, Francavilla S, Ferretti S, et al. Clinical evaluation of the iXip index to reduce prostate re-biopsies. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2018;16:59–63.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctarc.2018.07.001
Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, Flood TA, Lim CS, Schieda N. False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging. 2015;6:449–63.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0411-3
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur Urol Focus [Internet]. 2019;5:592–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010
Chatterjee A, Thomas S, Oto A. Prostate MR: pitfalls and benign lesions. Abdom Radiol [Internet]. 2020;45:2154–64.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02302-x
Wang Z, Zhao W, Shen J, Jiang Z, Yang S, Tan S, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study. Abdom Radiol [Internet]. 2020;(0123456789).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02724-y
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Yang S, Zhao W, Tan S, Zhang Y, Wei C, Chen T, et al. Combining clinical and MRI data to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions and reduce excessive biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1252–61.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-19-755
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, Salciccia S, Gentilucci A, Di Pierro G, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 Category Cases at Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus [Internet]. 2020;6:463–78.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.014
Byun J, Park KJ, Kim M hyun, Kim JK. Direct Comparison of PI-RADS Version 2 and 2.1 in Transition Zone Lesions for Detection of Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52(2):577–86.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27080
Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120:631–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13711
Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C, Schmaltz AK, Tschischka A, Laqua N, et al. Risk Stratification of Equivocal Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate. J Urol. 2018;199:691–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.074
Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73:353–60.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021
Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: How to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:70–82.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.31
van der Sar ECA, Kasivisvanathan V, Brizmohun M, Freeman A, Punwani S, Hamoudi R, et al. Management of Radiologically Indeterminate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Signals in Men at Risk of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2019;5:62–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.016
Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2017;197:640–6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109
How to Cite
Galosi, A. B., Palagonia, E., Scarcella, S., Cimadamore, A., Lacetera, V., Delle Fave, R. F., Antezza, A., & Dell’Atti, L. (2021). Detection limits of significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MR and digital rectal examination in men with low serum PSA: Up-date of the Italian Society of Integrated Diagnostic in Urology. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 93(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.92
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.