JH Chang MBChB; D Lim Joon FRANZCR; BT Nguyen FRANZCR; C-Y Hiew FRANZCR; S Esler FRANZCR; D Angus FRACS; M Chao FRANZCR; M Wada FRANZCR; G Quong FRANZCR; V Khoo MD.

Conflict of interest: All authors have indicated that they do not have any conflicts of interest in relation to this work.

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

Conventional clinical staging for prostate cancer has many limitations. This study evaluates the impact of adding MRI scans to conventional clinical staging for guiding decisions about radiotherapy target coverage.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 115 patients who were treated between February 2002 and September 2005 with radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer. All patients had MRI scans approximately 2 weeks before the initiation of radiotherapy. The T stage was assessed by both conventional clinical methods (cT-staging) as well as by MRI (mT-staging). The radiotherapy target volumes were determined first based on cT-staging and then taking the additional mT staging into account. The number of times extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion was incorporated into target volumes was quantified based on both cT-staging and the additional mT-staging.

Results

Extracapsular extension was incorporated into target volumes significantly more often with the addition of mT-staging (46 patients (40%) ) compared with cT-staging alone (37 patients (32%) ) (P = 0.002). Seminal vesicle invasion was incorporated into target volumes significantly more often with the addition of mT-staging (21 patients (18%) ) compared with cT-staging alone (three patients (3%) ) (P < 0.001). A total of 23 patients (20%) had changes to their target coverage based on the mT-staging.

Conclusions

MRI scans can significantly change decisions about target coverage in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

References

1 Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162–200.
10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Heidenreich A, Bolla M, Joniau S et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2011 [cited 2012 October 27]. Available from: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/08_Prostate_Cancer.pdf
Google Scholar
3 Philip J, Dutta Roy S, Ballal M, Foster CS, Javle P. Is a digital rectal examination necessary in the diagnosis and clinical staging of early prostate cancer? BJU Int 2005; 95: 969–971.
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05449.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology 1995; 45: 70–74.
10.1016/S0090-4295(95)96812-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, Hernandez AD, Rose SC, Egger MJ. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 1997; 157: 902–906.
10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65079-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007; 243: 28–53.
10.1148/radiol.2431030580
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor SP et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology 1995; 46: 205–212.
10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80195-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 2005; 174: 2158–2163.
10.1097/01.ju.0000181224.95276.82
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Khoo VS, Joon DL. New developments in MRI for target volume delineation in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2006; 79 (Spec No 1): S2–15.
10.1259/bjr/41321492
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y et al. Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 2004; 64: 101–105.
10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.036
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T – comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007; 244: 184–195.
10.1148/radiol.2441060425
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Jackson AS, Parker CC, Norman AR et al. Tumour staging using magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localised prostate cancer: relationship to biochemical outcome after neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation and radical radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005; 17: 167–171.
10.1016/j.clon.2004.08.007
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008. NICE clinical guidelines CG58 [cited 2012 December 16]. Available from: http://egap.evidence.nhs.uk/CG58/.
Google Scholar
14 Futterer JJ. MR imaging in local staging of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63: 328–334.
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.029
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Chao KK, Goldstein NS, Yan D et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: should the clinical target volume be expanded posterolaterally to account for microscopic extension? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 999–1007.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.02.039
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Teh BS, Bastasch MD, Wheeler TM et al. IMRT for prostate cancer: defining target volume based on correlated pathologic volume of disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 184–191.
10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00085-3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445–1451.
10.1001/jama.1997.03540420041027
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 2004; 100: 2655–2663.
10.1002/cncr.20319
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Takriti S et al. The role of conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision of whether to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2009; 43: 25–31.
10.1080/00365590802326610
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Hentschel B, Oehler W, Strauss D, Ulrich A, Malich A. Definition of the CTV prostate in CT and MRI by using CT-MRI image fusion in IMRT planning for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2011; 187: 183–190.
10.1007/s00066-010-2179-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Villeirs GM, Van Vaerenbergh K, Vakaet L et al. Interobserver delineation variation using CT versus combined CT + MRI in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2005; 181: 424–430.
10.1007/s00066-005-1383-x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Khoo EL, Schick K, Plank AW et al. Prostate contouring variation: can it be fixed? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 1923–1929.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.02.050
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Michalski JM, Purdy J, Bruner DW, Amin M. A phase III randomized study of high dose 3D-CRT/IMRT versus standard dose 3D-CRT/IMRT in patients treated for localized prostate cancer. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial no. RTOG 0126 [updated 2010 Mar 29, cited 2012 Mar 4]. Available from: http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?action=openFile&FileID=4589.
Google Scholar
24 International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1993. ICRU Report 50.
Google Scholar
25 Kestin L, Goldstein N, Vicini F, Yan D, Korman H, Martinez A. Treatment of prostate cancer with radiotherapy: should the entire seminal vesicles be included in the clinical target volume? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 54: 686–697.
10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03011-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Hayden AJ, Martin JM, Kneebone AB et al. Australian & New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group: 2010 consensus guidelines for definitive external beam radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54: 513–525.
10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02214.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Ontario Clinical Oncology Group. PROFIT – Prostate Fractionated Irradiation Trial [updated 2013 January 11; cited 2013 May 7]. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00304759.
Google Scholar
28 Khoo V. Imaging for radiotherapy treatment planning. In: J Husband, RH Reznek (eds). Husband and Reznek's Imaging in Oncology, 3rd edn. Informa Healthcare, London, UK, 2009; 1191–1216.
10.3109/9780415874984-53
Google Scholar
29 Peters LJ, O'Sullivan B, Giralt J et al. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2996–3001.
10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4498
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Bolla M, Van Tienhoven G, Warde P et al. External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 1066–1073.
10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70223-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Sanghani MV, Schultz D, Tempany CM et al. Quantifying the change in endorectal magnetic resonance imaging-defined tumor volume during neoadjuvant androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2003; 62: 487–491.
10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00463-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Hensel JM, Menard C, Chung PW et al. Development of multiorgan finite element-based prostate deformation model enabling registration of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 1522–1528.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 962–977.
10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.034
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Chang JH, Lim Joon D, Lee ST et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy dose painting for localized prostate cancer using (11)C-choline positron emission tomography scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: e691–696.
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.087
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Chang JH, Joon DL, Lee ST et al. Histopathological correlation of (11)C-choline PET scans for target volume definition in radical prostate radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2011; 99: 187–192.
10.1016/j.radonc.2011.03.012
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume58, Issue2

April 2014

Pages 237-243

MRI scans significantly change target coverage decisions in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

MRI scans significantly change target coverage decisions in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information