Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Diagnostic value of multiparametric MRI in detecting residual or recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of follow-up multiparametric MRI for prediction of recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), and to find other, if any, clinical or radiological predictors.

Materials and methods

Post-HIFU MRIs of 110 consecutive patients who underwent follow-up biopsies between August 2019 and April 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and the likelihood of recurrence was assessed on a five-point Likert scale by two board-certified uroradiologists. Diagnostic performance of the Likert scale assigned to the post-HIFU MRI was assessed using the follow-up biopsy results as a reference standard. Among the clinical and radiological variables, predictors of the recurrence were examined through logistic regression.

Results

In per-patient and per-sector analyses, Likert scale on post-HIFU MRI showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.37 and 0.97, and 0.42 and 0.87, respectively, in predicting recurrence. Two patients with high suspicion on MRI required additional treatment to regain biochemical control despite negative biopsies. High suspicion on post-HIFU MRI (odds ratio = 1.74; p < 0.01), and more cancer-positive cores on initial biopsy (odds ratio = 1.25; p = 0.03) were independent predictors of recurrence.

Conclusion

Albeit with low sensitivity, high suspicion on post-HIFU MRI may be clinically important because of its high specificity, especially when considering the possibility of sampling error in biopsies. Patients with a high number of cancer-positive cores at diagnosis should avoid HIFU as they have an increased risk of recurrence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Post-HIFU MRI of two patients who underwent whole-gland HIFU for bilateral ISUP grade group 2 prostate cancer.
Fig. 2: Post-HIFU MRI of a 69-year-old patient who underwent right hemilobe HIFU for unilateral ISUP grade group 3 prostate cancer.
Fig. 3: ROC curves of each sequence of mutiparametric MRI in the prediction of recurrent PCa.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Achard V, Panje CM, Engeler D, Zilli T, Putora PM. Localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: treatment options. Oncology. 2021;99:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guo R-Q, Guo X-X, Li Y-M, Bie Z-X, Li B, Li X-G. Cryoablation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, irreversible electroporation, and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26:461–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghafoor S, Becker AS, Stocker D, Barth BK, Eberli D, Donati OF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate after focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45:3882–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bakavicius A, Marra G, Macek P, Robertson C, Abreu AL, George AK, et al. Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48:263–74.

  6. Ben Cheikh A, Girouin N, Ryon-Taponnier P, Mège-Lechevallier F, Gelet A, Chapelon JY, et al. [MR detection of local prostate cancer recurrence after transrectal high-intensity focused US treatment: preliminary results]. J Radiol. 2008;89:571–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kim SS, Kim E. MRI techniques for prediction of local tumor progression after high-intensity focused ultrasonic ablation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1180–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Punwani S, Emberton M, Walkden M, Sohaib A, Freeman A, Ahmed H, et al. Prostatic cancer surveillance following whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound: comparison of MRI and prostate-specific antigen for detection of residual or recurrent disease. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:720–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Del Vescovo R, Pisanti F, Russo V, Battisti S, Cazzato RL, D’Agostino F, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR evaluation of prostate cancer before and after endorectal high-intensity focused ultrasound. Radiol Med. 2013;118:851–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Muto S, Kaminaga T, Horiuchi A, Kitamura K, Saito K, Isotani S, et al. Usefulness of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in predicting positive biopsy after high-intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol J Jpn Urol Assoc. 2014;21:776–80.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shah TT, Peters M, Kanthabalan A, McCartan N, Fatola Y, van der Voort van Zyp J, et al. PSA nadir as a predictive factor for biochemical disease-free survival and overall survival following whole-gland salvage HIFU following radiotherapy failure. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:311–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, McCartan N, Freeman A, Allen C, et al. Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:30.e9–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ganzer R, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Koch D, Baumunk D, Kuru T, et al. Prospective multicenter phase II study on focal therapy (Hemiablation) of the prostate with high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol. 2018;199:983–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lotte R, Lafourcade A, Mozer P, Conort P, Barret E, Comperat E, et al. Multiparametric MRI for suspected recurrent prostate cancer after HIFU: is DCE still needed? Eur Radiol. 2018;28:3760–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mortezavi A, Krauter J, Gu A, Sonderer J, Bruhin J, Reeve KA, et al. Extensive histological sampling following focal therapy of clinically significant prostate cancer with high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol. 2019;202:717–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenhammer B, Niessen C, Rotzinger L, Reiss J, Schnabel MJ, Burger M, et al. Oncological outcome and value of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging after focal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2019;103:270–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bacchetta F, Martins M, Regusci S, Jichlinski P, Meuwly J-Y, Lucca I, et al. The utility of intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound in detecting residual disease after focal HIFU for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:846.e1–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yee C-H, Chiu PK-F, Teoh JY-C, Ng C-F, Chan C-K, Hou S-M. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy for localized prostate cancer with MRI-US fusion platform. Adv Urol. 2021;2021:e7157973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoquetis L, Malavaud B, Game X, Beauval JB, Portalez D, Soulie M, et al. MRI evaluation following partial HIFU therapy for localized prostate cancer: a single-center study. Prog Urol. 2016;26:517–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Ogawa T, Hanada I, Nakano M, Zakoji H, et al. Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for the localized prostate cancer based on the localization with MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided biopsy: 1-year prospective study. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 2018;109:194–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bass R, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Barkin J, Zhang L, Klotz L. Oncologic and functional outcomes of partial gland ablation with high intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;201:113–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shoji S, Yamada K, Naruse J, Izumi H, Otaki T, Ogawa T, et al. Clinical predictors for detection of significant cancer in follow-up biopsy after focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2020;203:e611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Committee on PI-RADS®. PI-RADS version 2.1. 2019. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf.

  24. Hu JC, Basourakos SP, Futterer J. Need for systematic magnetic resonance imaging interpretation and reporting after partial prostate gland ablation. Eur Urol. 2021;79:167–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC, Turkbey BI, Margolis DJ, Richenberg J, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for local recurrence reporting (PI-RR): International Consensus-based Guidelines on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Recurrence after Radiation Therapy and Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:868–76.

  26. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22:276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosset R, Bratan F, Crouzet S, Tonoli-Catez H, Mège-Lechevallier F, Gelet A, et al. Can pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging predict recurrence-free survival after whole-gland high-intensity focused ablation for prostate cancer? Eur Radiol. 2017;27:1768–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leeflang MMG, Bossuyt PMM, Irwig L. Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HA, SIH, and HL conceived and planned the experiments. GC, SKH, SB, and HL contributed to sample preparation. HA, SIH, and HJL carried out the experiments. HA and TMK contributed to the analysis of the results. HA and SIH took the lead in writing the manuscript. All authors provided feedback in shaping the research, analysis and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakmin Lee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahn, H., Hwang, S.I., Kim, T.M. et al. Diagnostic value of multiparametric MRI in detecting residual or recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00531-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00531-8

Search

Quick links