Search

Thermal ablation is a form of hyperthermia in which oncologic control can be achieved by briefly inducing elevated temperatures, typically in the range 50–80°C, within a target tissue. Ablation modalities include high intensity focused ultrasound, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and laser interstitial thermal therapy which are all capable of generating confined zones of tissue destruction, resulting in fewer complications than conventional cancer therapies. Oncologic control is contingent upon achieving predefined coagulation zones; therefore, intraoperative assessment of treatment progress is highly desirable. Consequently, there is a growing interest in the development of ablation monitoring modalities. The first section of this review presents the mechanism of action and common applications of the primary ablation modalities. The following section outlines the state‐of‐the‐art in thermal dosimetry which includes interstitial thermal probes and radiologic imaging. Both the physical mechanism of measurement and clinical or pre‐clinical performance are discussed for each ablation modality. Thermal dosimetry must be coupled with a thermal damage model as outlined in Section 4. These models estimate cell death based on temperature‐time history and are inherently tissue specific. In the absence of a reliable thermal model, the utility of thermal monitoring is greatly reduced. The final section of this review paper covers technologies that have been developed to directly assess tissue conditions. These approaches include visualization of non‐perfused tissue with contrast‐enhanced imaging, assessment of tissue mechanical properties using ultrasound and magnetic resonance elastography, and finally interrogation of tissue optical properties with interstitial probes. In summary, monitoring thermal ablation is critical for consistent clinical success and many promising technologies are under development but an optimal solution has yet to achieve widespread adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To create reliable predictive metrics of unilateral disease using spatial tracking from a fusion device, thereby improving patient selection for hemi‐gland ablation of prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: We identified patients who received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound‐guided biopsy and radical prostatectomy at a single institution between 2011 and 2018. In addition to standard clinical features, we extracted quantitative features related to biopsy core and MRI target locations predictive of tumour unilaterality. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to create a decision tree (DT) for identifying cancer laterality. We evaluated concordance of model‐determined laterality with final surgical pathology. Results: A total of 173 patients were identified with biopsy coordinates and surgical pathology available. Based on CART analysis, in addition to biopsy‐ and MRI‐confirmed disease unilaterality, patients should be further screened for cancer detected within 7 mm of midline in a 40 mL prostate, which equates to the central third of any‐sized prostate by radius. The area under the curve for this DT was 0.82. Standard diagnostics and the DT correctly identified disease laterality in 73% and 80% of patients, respectively (P = 0.13). Of the patients identified as unilateral by standard diagnostics, 47% had undetected contralateral disease or were otherwise incorrectly identified. This error rate was reduced to 17% (P = 0.01) with the DT. Conclusion: Using spatial tracking from fusion devices, a DT was more reliable for identifying laterality of prostate cancer compared to standard diagnostics. Patients with cancer detected within the central third of the prostate by radius are poor hemi‐gland ablation candidates due to the risk of midline extension of tumour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hemiablation is a less morbid treatment alternative for appropriately selected patients with unilateral prostate cancer (PCa). However, to the authors' knowledge, traditional diagnostic techniques inadequately identify appropriate candidates. In the current study, the authors quantified the accuracy for identifying hemiablation candidates using contemporary diagnostic techniques, including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI‐fusion with complete systematic template biopsy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRI and MRI‐fusion prostate biopsy, including full systematic template biopsy, prior to radical prostatectomy in a single tertiary academic institution between June 2010 and February 2018 was performed. Hemiablation candidates had unilateral intermediate‐risk PCa (Gleason score [GS] of 3+4 or 4+3, clinical T classification ≤T2, and prostate‐specific antigen level <20 ng/dL) on MRI‐fusion biopsy and 2) no contralateral highly or very highly suspicious Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI‐RADSv2) MRI lesions. Hemiablation candidates were inappropriately selected if pathologists identified contralateral GS ≥3+4 or high‐risk ipsilateral PCa on prostatectomy. The authors tested a range of hemiablation inclusion criteria and performed multivariable analysis of preoperative predictors of undetected contralateral disease. Results: Of 665 patients, 92 met primary hemiablation criteria. Of these 92 patients, 44 (48%) were incorrectly identified due to ipsilateral GS ≥3+4 tumors crossing the midline (21 patients), undetected distinct contralateral GS ≥3+4 tumors (20 patients), and/or ipsilateral high‐risk PCa (3 patients) on prostatectomy. The rate of undetected contralateral disease ranged from 41% to 48% depending on inclusion criteria. On multivariable analysis, men with anterior index tumors were found to be 2.4 times more likely to harbor undetected contralateral GS ≥3+4 PCa compared with men with posterior lesions (P < .05). Conclusions: Clinicians and patients must weigh the risk of inadequate oncologic treatment against the functional benefits of hemiablation. Further investigation into methods for improving patient selection for hemiablation is necessary. Even with contemporary diagnostic techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MRI‐fusion biopsy, and systematic template biopsy, appropriately identifying unilateral prostate cancer remains difficult. Nearly one‐half of hemiablation candidates based on preoperative radiographic, clinical, and pathologic factors harbored pathology, making them inappropriate for hemiablation in their radical prostatectomy specimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-specific 3D-printed molds and ex vivo MRI of the resected prostate have been two important strategies to align MRI with whole-mount histopathology (WMHP) for prostate cancer (PCa) research, but the combination of these two strategies has not been systematically evaluated.Purpose: To develop and evaluate a system that combines patient-specific 3D-printed molds with ex vivo MRI (ExV) to spatially align in vivo MRI (InV), ExV, and WMHP in PCa patients.Study Type: Prospective cohort study.Population: Seventeen PCa patients who underwent 3T MRI and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).Field Strength/sequences: T2 -weighted turbo spin-echo sequences at 3T.Assessment: Immediately after RALP, the fresh whole prostate specimens were imaged in patient-specific 3D-printed molds by 3T MRI and then sectioned to create WMHP slides. The time required for ExV was measured to assess impact on workflow. InV, ExV, and WMHP images were registered. Spatial alignment was evaluated using: slide offset (mm) between ExV slice locations and WMHP slides; overlap of the 3D prostate contour on InV versus ExV using Dice's coefficient (0 to 1); and 2D target registration error (TRE, mm) between corresponding landmarks on InV, ExV, and WMHP. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD).Statistical Testing: Differences in 2D TRE before versus after registration were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < 0.05 considered significant).Results: ExV (duration 115 ± 15 min) was successfully incorporated into the workflow for all cases. Absolute slide offset was 1.58 ± 1.57 mm. Dice's coefficient was 0.865 ± 0.035. 2D TRE was significantly reduced after registration (P < 0.01) with mean (±SD of per patient means) of 1.9 ± 0.6 mm for InV versus ExV, 1.4 ± 0.5 mm for WMHP versus ExV, and 2.0 ± 0.5 mm for WMHP versus InV.Data Conclusion: The proposed system combines patient-specific 3D-printed molds with ExV to achieve spatial alignment between InV, ExV, and WMHP with mean 2D TRE of 1-2 mm.Level Of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:270-279. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was conducted to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR)-ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP).Methods: A total of 1042 men underwent multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy consecutively in a prospective trial (2009-2014). An expert reader graded mpMRI regions of interest (ROIs) as 1 to 5 using published protocols. The fusion biopsy device was used to obtain targeted cores from ROIs (when present) followed by a fusion image-guided, 12-core systematic biopsy in all men, even if no suspicious ROI was noted. The primary endpoint of the study was the detection of csCaP (ie, Gleason score ≥ 7).Results: Among 825 men with ≥ 1 suspicious ROI of ≥ grade 3, 289 (35%) were found to have csCaP. Powerful predictors of csCaP were ROI grade (grade 5 vs grade 3: odds ratio, 6.5 [P<.01]) and prostate-specific antigen density (each increase of 0.05 ng/mL/cc: odds ratio, 1.4 [P<.01]). Combining systematic and targeted biopsies resulted in the detection of more patients with csCaP (289 patients) than targeting (229 patients) or systematic (199 patients) biopsy alone. Among patients with no suspicious ROI, 35 (16%) were found to have csCaP on systematic biopsy.Conclusions: In this prospective trial, MR-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the detection of csCaP, with a direct relationship noted with ROI grade and prostate-specific antigen density. The combination of targeted and systematic biopsy detected more csCaP than either modality alone; systematic biopsies revealed csCaP in 16% of men with no suspicious MRI target. The advantages of this new biopsy method are apparent, but issues of cost, training, and reliability await resolution before its widespread adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]