Advertisement

Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer: a national survey of patterns of practice among radiation oncologists in Spain

  • F. Couñago
  • G. Sancho
  • A. Gómez-Iturriaga
  • I. Henríquez
  • The Urological Tumours Working Group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (URONCOR/SEOR)
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate patterns of practice among Spanish radiation oncologists in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). We evaluated (1) access to mpMRI, (2) current clinical practices, and (3) physician expectations of mpMRI.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 118 radiation oncologists at 75 Radiation Oncology (RO) departments in Spain.

Results

A total of 55 radiation oncologists from 52 RO departments (52/75; 69%) completed the survey. Prostate mpMRI is performed at 94.5% of the centres that provided data. The most common indications for mpMRI in routine clinical practice were: (1) detection/localization of the tumour prior to second biopsy (82.7%), (2) cancer staging (80.8%), and (3) detection of recurrence after definitive treatment (80.8%). Most respondents (72.7%) reported modifying the primary radiotherapy treatment when mpMRI findings indicate a more advanced T stage with a resultant change in the risk group. Most respondents (90.5%) treat macroscopic local recurrence after prostatectomy with high doses, ranging from 71 to 83 Gy; in 37.7% of cases, the full dose is delivered to the entire prostate bed. In pelvic nodal recurrence, more than half (59.3%) of the respondents reported performing elective pelvic radiotherapy, including the prostate bed, with a boost to the involved nodes.

Conclusions

This survey shows that prostate mpMRI is routinely used by radiation oncologists in Spain in a wide range of clinical scenarios. The findings reported here underscore the need to standardize treatment protocols for definitive and salvage radiotherapy in patients evaluated with mpMRI.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Radiation oncologists Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants in the study for helping to contribute to a greater understanding of the situation of mpMRI in Spain (the participating hospitals are listed in Online Resource 1). The authors would like to thank to Israel John Thuissard and David Sanz-Rosa for their support with the statistical analysis and creation of the figures in this manuscript. We thank Bradley Londres for his excellent work in translating and editing this manuscript.

Funding

The translation of this work was supported financially by the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Supplementary material

12094_2018_1919_MOESM1_ESM.doc (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 25 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Europe [Internet]. EU SCIENCE HUB. [cited 2017]. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/epidemiology-prostate-cancer-europe.
  2. 2.
    King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(2):386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumours at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol. 2006;176(3):979–84 (discussion 984).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoffman RM. Screening for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(21):2013–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL. Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1471–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lim Joon D, Lim A, Schneider M, Hiew C-Y, Lawrentschuk N, Sengupta S, et al. Prostate cancer post-prostatectomy radiotherapy: CT vs MRI for vesico-urethral anastomosis target delineation. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125(1):113–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang JH, Lim Joon D, Nguyen BT, Hiew C-Y, Esler S, Angus D, et al. MRI scans significantly change target coverage decisions in radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: MRI in prostate radiotherapy. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58(2):237–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang J, Tanderup K, Cunha A, Damato AL, Cohen GN, Kudchadker RJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging basics for the prostate brachytherapist. Brachytherapy. 2017;16(4):715–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Couñago F, del Cerro E, Díaz-Gavela AA, Marcos FJ, Recio M, Sanz-Rosa D, et al. Tumour staging using 3.0 T multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer: impact on treatment decisions for radical radiotherapy. Springerplus. 2015;4:789.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dal Pra A, Panje C, Zilli T, Arnold W, Brouwer K, Garcia H, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for macroscopic local recurrences after radical prostatectomy: a national survey on patterns of practice. Strahlenther Onkol. 2018;194(1):9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez A, Algara M, Monge D, López-Torrecilla J, Caballero F, Morera R, et al. Infrastructure and equipment for radiation oncology in the Spanish National Health System: analysis of external beam radiotherapy 2015–2020. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20(3):402–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ESUR Guidelines. Prostate MRI. Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System (PIRADS):Version 2. http://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/user_upload/PIRADS_v2_20141223.pdf.
  14. 14.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):438–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M, et al. European Association of Urology. Prostate Cancer Guidelines. 2018. http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#1.
  16. 16.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018. (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, Kattan MW, McKenney JK, Srigley JR, Barocas DA, et al. American Join Committee on cancer staging manual. 8th ed. Chicago: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gomez-Iturriaga A, Casquero F, Pijoan JI, Crook J, Urresola A, Ezquerro A, et al. Pretreatment multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings are more accurate independent predictors of outcome than clinical variables in localized. prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.039 (In press).
  19. 19.
    Manley BJ, Brockman JA, Raup VT, Fowler KJ, Andriole GL. Prostate MRI: a national survey of Urologist’s attitudes and perceptions. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(3):464–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Couñago F, Sancho G, Catalá V, Hernández D, Recio M, Montemuiño S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer before radical and salvage radiotherapy: what radiation oncologists need to know. World J Clin Oncol. 2017;8(4):305–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaish H, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB. The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(1):260–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gómez Caamaño A, Zapatero A, López Torrecilla J, Maldonado X. Management of prostate cancer patients following radiation therapy after radical surgery referred from urology to radiation oncology departments in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol. 2016;18(9):884–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carrie C, Hasbini A, de Laroche G, Richaud P, Guerif S, Latorzeff I, et al. Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):747–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shipley WU, Seiferheld W, Lukka HR, Major PP, Heney NM, Grignon DJ, et al. Radiation with or without antiandrogen therapy in recurrent prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(5):417–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spratt DE, Dess RT, Zumsteg ZS, Lin DW, Tran PT, Morgan TM, et al. A systematic review and framework for the use of hormone therapy with salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):156–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siepe G, Buwenge M, Nguyen NP, Macchia G, Deodato F, Cilla S, et al. Postoperative hypofractionated radiation therapy in prostate carcinoma: a systematic review. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(3):1221–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ost P, Reynders D, Decaestecker K, Fonteyne V, Lumen N, De Bruycker A, et al. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicentre phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(5):446–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Renard-Penna R, Rouvière O, Puech P, Borgogno C, Abbas L, Roy C, et al. Current practice and access to prostate MR imaging in France. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016;97(11):1125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Couñago
    • 1
  • G. Sancho
    • 2
  • A. Gómez-Iturriaga
    • 3
  • I. Henríquez
    • 4
  • The Urological Tumours Working Group of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (URONCOR/SEOR)
  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud, MadridUniversidad Europea de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario CrucesBiocruces Health Research InstituteBarakaldoSpain
  4. 4.Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario de Sant JoanInstitute d’Investigació Sanitaria Pere Virgili (IISPV)ReusSpain

Personalised recommendations