Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 12, pp 2585–2595 | Cite as

Pattern of metastatic deposit in recurrent prostate cancer: a whole-body MRI-based assessment of lesion distribution and effect of primary treatment

  • Vassiliki PasoglouEmail author
  • Nicolas Michoux
  • Julien Van Damme
  • Sandy Van Nieuwenhove
  • Marin Halut
  • Perrine Triqueneaux
  • Bertrand Tombal
  • Frédéric E. Lecouvet
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

It is generally accepted that when metastases develop in a patient with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa), they follow a centrifuge pattern of seeding from the pelvis and that most patients enter the disease as oligometastatic. In this study, we used whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) to assess the anatomical distribution of oligo- and polymetastatic disease and the impact of the initial treatment on this distribution in patients.

Materials and methods

WB-MRI examinations of patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical treatment by surgery or/and radiotherapy were analyzed for disease recurrence. The patients were separated into three groups, based on the primary treatment: patients treated by radical prostatectomy without radiotherapy and with/without lymph node dissection (RP), patients treated only by radiotherapy or hormono-radiotherapy (RT) and patients treated with radical prostatectomy and adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy (RP + RT). Patients with ≤ 5 bone or/and node metastases were considered oligometastatic. Regional distributions of bone and lymph nodes metastases were reported using anatomical diagrams. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify prognostic factors of relapse.

Results

The primary treatment (RP, RT, RP + RT), Gleason score, PSA at relapse, time between first diagnosis and recurrence did not influence the metastatic status (oligo vs. polymetastatic). Oligometastatic patients showed different distribution of bone metastases compared to the polymetastatic ones and the distribution of the oligometastatic disease was not influenced by the primary treatment.

Conclusions

In this WB-MRI-based study, there was no evidence that the primary treatment influenced the metastatic status of the patient or the distribution of the oligometastatic disease.

Keywords

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging Whole-body MRI Oligometastatic prostate cancer Prostate cancer Recurrence Recurrent prostate cancer Primary treatment Metastasis distribution 

Notes

Author contributions

VP, NM, JVD, SVN, BT, FEL: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. PT: data collection or management. MH: drawings

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Roehl KA et al (2004) Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 172(3):910–914PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR (1995) Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol 13(1):8–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Padhani AR et al (2017) Rationale for modernising imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 3(2–3):223–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lecouvet FE et al (2012) Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99 m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 62(1):68–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta SK et al (2017) Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography for prostate cancer: distribution of disease and implications for radiation therapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 99(3):701–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lepinoy A et al (2014) Pattern of occult nodal relapse diagnosed with (18)F-fluoro–choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after prostate-only radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 111(1):120–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ost P et al (2016) Pattern of progression after stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer nodal recurrences. Clin Oncol R Coll Radiol 28(9):e115–e120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sobol I et al (2017) Contemporary mapping of post-prostatectomy prostate cancer relapse with (11)C-Choline positron emission tomography and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 197(1):129–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larbi A et al (2016) Whole body MRI (WB-MRI) assessment of metastatic spread in prostate cancer: therapeutic perspectives on targeted management of oligometastatic disease. Prostate 76(11):1024–1033PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisenhauer EA et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koh DM, Hughes M, Husband JE (2006) Cross-sectional imaging of nodal metastases in the abdomen and pelvis. Abdom Imaging 31(6):632–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed KA et al (2012) Stereotactic body radiation therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2:215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tabata K et al (2012) Radiotherapy for oligometastases and oligo-recurrence of bone in prostate cancer. Pulm Med 2012:541656PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehta CR, Patel NR (1983) A network algorithm for performing Fisher’s exact test in r c contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc 78:427–434Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newcombe RG (1998) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17(8):857–872PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pampel FC (2000) Logistic regression: a primer. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand oaks. Sage Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tosoian JJ et al (2017) Oligometastatic prostate cancer: definitions, clinical outcomes, and treatment considerations. Nat Rev Urol 14(1):15–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh D et al (2004) Is there a favorable subset of patients with prostate cancer who develop oligometastases? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(1):3–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solloway MJ et al (1998) Mice lacking Bmp6 function. Dev Genet 22(4):321–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gillessen S et al (2018) Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: the report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference APCCC 2017. Eur Urol 73(2):178–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parker CC et al (2018) Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 392:2353–2366PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tamoto E et al (2004) Gene-expression profile changes correlated with tumor progression and lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10(11):3629–3638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lussier YA et al (2011) MicroRNA expression characterizes oligometastasis(es). PLoS One 6(12):e28650PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gundem G et al (2015) The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 520(7547):353–357PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy DG, Sweeney CJ, Tombal B (2017) “Gotta Catch ‘em All”, or do we? Pokemet approach to metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72(1):1–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ost P et al (2018) Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 36(5):446–453PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muacevic A et al (2013) Safety and feasibility of image-guided robotic radiosurgery for patients with limited bone metastases of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 31(4):455–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richard PJ, Rengan R (2016) Oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: current treatment strategies. Lung Cancer (Auckl) 7:129–140Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simmonds PC et al (2006) Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies. Br J Cancer 94(7):982–999PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graves A et al (2013) Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: update on epidemiology, genetics, and therapeutic modalities. Immunotargets Ther 2:73–90PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lecouvet FE et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 25(22):3281–3287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hirmas N, Al-Ibraheem A, Herrmann K, Alsharif A, Muhsin H, Khader J, Al-Daghmin A, Salah S (2018) [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT improves initial staging and management plan of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1278-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Padhani AR et al (2017) METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71(1):81–92PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park SY et al (2018) Gallium 68 PSMA-11 PET/MR imaging in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. Radiology 288(2):495–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dyrberg E et al (2018) (68)Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with (18)F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Eur Radiol 29:1221–1230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pasoglou V et al (2014) One-step TNM staging of high-risk prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): toward an upfront simplified “all-in-one” imaging approach? Prostate 74(5):469–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pasoglou V et al (2015) Whole-body 3D T1-weighted MR imaging in patients with prostate cancer: feasibility and evaluation in screening for metastatic disease. Radiology 275(1):155–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lecouvet FE et al (2018) Use of modern imaging methods to facilitate trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC imaging group. Lancet Oncol 19(10):e534–e545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parker WP et al (2017) Identification of site-specific recurrence following primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer using C-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a nomogram for predicting extrapelvic disease. Eur Urol 71(3):340–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Soldatov A et al (2019) Patterns of progression after (68)Ga-PSMA-ligand PET/CT-guided radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 103(1):95–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rischke HC et al (2015) Adjuvant radiotherapy after salvage lymph node dissection because of nodal relapse of prostate cancer versus salvage lymph node dissection only. Strahlenther Onkol 191(4):310–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meijer HJ et al (2013) Geographical distribution of lymph node metastases on MR lymphography in prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 106(1):59–63PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Centre Du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale Et Clinique (IREC, IMAG), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-LucUniversité Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of UrologyCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations