Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):910–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR (1995) Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol 13(1):8–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Padhani AR et al (2017) Rationale for modernising imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 3(2–3):223–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):68–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):701–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1024–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenhauer EA et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koh DM, Hughes M, Husband JE (2006) Cross-sectional imaging of nodal metastases in the abdomen and pelvis. Abdom Imaging 31(6):632–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahmed KA et al (2012) Stereotactic body radiation therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2:215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tabata K et al (2012) Radiotherapy for oligometastases and oligo-recurrence of bone in prostate cancer. Pulm Med 2012:541656

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehta CR, Patel NR (1983) A network algorithm for performing Fisher’s exact test in r c contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc 78:427–434

    Google Scholar 

  15. Newcombe RG (1998) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17(8):857–872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pampel FC (2000) Logistic regression: a primer. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand oaks. Sage Publications, California

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Tosoian JJ et al (2017) Oligometastatic prostate cancer: definitions, clinical outcomes, and treatment considerations. Nat Rev Urol 14(1):15–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Solloway MJ et al (1998) Mice lacking Bmp6 function. Dev Genet 22(4):321–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):178–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 392:2353–2366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):3629–3638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lussier YA et al (2011) MicroRNA expression characterizes oligometastasis(es). PLoS One 6(12):e28650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gundem G et al (2015) The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 520(7547):353–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):446–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):455–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Richard PJ, Rengan R (2016) Oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: current treatment strategies. Lung Cancer (Auckl) 7:129–140

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):982–999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Graves A et al (2013) Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: update on epidemiology, genetics, and therapeutic modalities. Immunotargets Ther 2:73–90

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):3281–3287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):81–92

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):495–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 29:1221–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):469–477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):155–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):340–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):95–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):310–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Meijer HJ et al (2013) Geographical distribution of lymph node metastases on MR lymphography in prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 106(1):59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Centre Du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale Et Clinique (IREC, IMAG), Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Vassiliki Pasoglou, Nicolas Michoux, Sandy Van Nieuwenhove, Marin Halut, Perrine Triqueneaux & Frédéric E. Lecouvet

  2. Department of Urology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Julien Van Damme & Bertrand Tombal

Authors
  1. Vassiliki Pasoglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Michoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julien Van Damme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandy Van Nieuwenhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marin Halut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Perrine Triqueneaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bertrand Tombal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Frédéric E. Lecouvet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vassiliki Pasoglou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasoglou, V., Michoux, N., Van Damme, J. et al. Pattern of metastatic deposit in recurrent prostate cancer: a whole-body MRI-based assessment of lesion distribution and effect of primary treatment. World J Urol 37, 2585–2595 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02700-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02700-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation