Современный подход к лучевой диагностике рака предстательной железы (систематический обзор международных рекомендаций и клинических исследований за период 2014–2020 гг.)

Повышение уровня общего простатспецифического антигена требует дополнительного обследования пациента, для того чтобы не подвергать его излишнему лечению при наличии клинически незначимого рака предстательной железы (кнзРПЖ) и, наоборот, чтобы провести необходимый объем мероприятий при наличии клинически значимого рака предстательной железы (кзРПЖ). В данной статье представлены современные подходы к использованию лучевых методов в системе ведения пациентов с диагнозом или подозрением на рак предстательной железы на основе анализа ключевых публикаций. Для оценки достоинств и недостатков различных методов диагностики РПЖ проведен поиск публикаций за 2014–2020 гг. в базах данных Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed по ключевым словам: prostate cancer, multiparametric MRI, multiparametric ultrasound, PSMA PET/CT. Было отобрано 27 статей. В обзор включены рекомендации Европейской ассоциации урологов, Американского урологического общества, Американской коллегии радиологов и одно практическое руководство.

мультипараметрическая магнитно-резонансная томография, рак предстательной железы, биопсия предстательной железы, активное наблюдение

1. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Zhou Q, Cleves A, et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018; 362: k3519. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3519

2. Chung DY, Kim MS, Lee JS, Goh HJ, Koh DH, Jang WS, et al. Clinical significance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a preoperative predictor of oncologic outcome in very low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(4): 542. doi: 10.3390/jcm8040542

3. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, De Santis M, Fanti S, et al. Prostate cancer: EAU Guideline. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ (accessed October 28, 2020).

4. Sanda MG, Chen RC, Crispino T, Freedland S, Greene K, Klotz LH, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline; 2017. Available at: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-clinically-localized-guideline (accessed October 28, 2020).

5. Barr RG, Cosgrove D, Brock M, Cantisani V, Correas JM, Postema AW, et al. WFUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography: part 5. Prostate. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017; 43(1): 27–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.020

6. Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Postema AW, Hagemann J, Budäus L, Tilki D, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound: evaluation of greyscale, shear wave elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization in correlation to radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Urol. 2018; 18(1): 98. doi: 10.1186/s12894-018-0409-5

7. Kamoi K., Okihara K., Ochiai A., Ukimura O., Mizutani Y., Kawauchi A. The utility of transrectal real-time elastography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008; 34(7): P1025–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.12.002

8. Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Remmers S, Kollenburg RA, Kajtazovic A, Hagemann J, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization: correlation of B-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2019; 202(6): 1166–73. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000415

9. Chatfield M, Hicks L, Kaur D, Vivian-Davis C. ACR PI-RADS: prostate imaging and reporting and data system. Version 2.1. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2019. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-DataSystems/PI-RADS (accessed October 28, 2020).

10. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071): 815–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140–6736(16)32401–1

11. Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Harmon S, Clayton Smith C, Bloom J, Czarniecki M, et al. A grading system for the assessment of risk of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI. Radiology. 2019; 290(3): 709–19. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181278

12. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Epstein JI, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Schaeffer EM. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: use, outcomes, imaging, and diagnostic tools. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35: e235–45. doi: 10.14694/EDBK_159244

13. Gordon LG, James R, Tuffaha HW, Lowe A, Yaxley J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of multiparametric MRI with increased active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 45(5): 1304–15. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25504

14. Vos LJ, Janoski M, Wachowicz K, Yahya A, Boychak O, Amanie J, et al. Role of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. World J Radiol. 2016; 8(4): 410–8. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.410

15. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, Hope T, Hofman M, Rischpler C, et al. 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(9): 1286–94. doi: 10.1016/S14702045(19)30415-2

16. Eissa A, Elsherbiny A, Coelho R, Rassweiler J, Davis JW, Porpiglia F, et al. The role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan in biochemical recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018; 70(5): 462–78. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03081-3

17. Hara T, Ogata T, Wada H, Yabukia T, Kanazawa S. Prostate cancer detection with multiparametric MRI: a comparison of 1 M-concentration Gadobutrol with 0.5 M-concentration gadolinium-based contrast agents. Curr. Urol. 2017; 11(4): 201–5. doi: 10.1159/000447219

18. Коссов Ф.А., Булычкин П.В., Олимов Б.П., Панов В.О., Ткачев С.И., Буйденок Ю.В. и др. Возможности мультипараметрической магнитно-резонансной томографии в персонализации «спасительной» лучевой терапии у больных с рецидивом рака предстательной железы. Вестник рентгенологии и радиологии. 2018; 99(2): 91–100. doi: 10.20862/0042-46762018-99-2-91-100

19. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. 2020. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf (accessed December 23, 2020).

20. ESUR Guidelines on Contrast Agents 10.0. 2018. Available at: http://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf (accessed December 23, 2020).

21. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(11): 969–74. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969

22. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, MagiGaluzzi C, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(3): 428–35. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046

23. Klotz LH. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: walking the line between overtreatment for indolent disease and undertreatment for aggressive disease. Can J Urol. 2005; 12(Suppl 1): 53–7.

24. Gaur S, Turkbey B. Prostate MRI for post-treatment evaluation and recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018; 56(2): 263–75. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.008

25. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0848-y

26. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FJH, Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017; 120(4): 511–9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13836

27. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi MS. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2014; 271(2): 435–44. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130801

28. Kim TH, Kim CK, Park BK, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, et al. Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10(11–12): 377–82. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3896

29. Guo R, Cai L, Fan Y, Jin J, Zhou L, Zhang K. Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic metaanalysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18(3): 221–8. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2015.20

30. Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JL, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017; 71(4): 517–31. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041

31. Дубицкий Д.Л., Мищенко А.В., Трофименко И.А. Магнитнорезонансная томография предстательной железы. 2-е изд. М.: ГЭOТАР-Медиа; 2021.