Literature DB >> 19643467

Focal treatment or observation of prostate cancer: pretreatment accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and T2-weighted MRI.

Lucas Nogueira1, Liang Wang, Samson W Fine, Rodrigo Pinochet, Jordan M Kurta, Darren Katz, Caroline J Savage, Angel M Cronin, Hedvig Hricak, Peter T Scardino, Oguz Akin, Jonathan A Coleman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that men with prostate cancer (PCA) and preoperative disease features considered favorable for focal treatment would be accurately characterized with transrectal biopsy and prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by performing a retrospective analysis of a selected cohort of such patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: A total of 202 patients with PCA who had preoperative MRI and low-risk biopsy criteria (no Gleason grade 4/5, 1 involved core, < 2 mm, PSA density < or = 0.10, clinical stage < or = T2a) were included in the study. Indolent RP pathology was defined as no Gleason 4/5, organ confined, tumor volume < 0.5 mL, and negative surgical margins. MRI ability to locate and determine the tumor extent was assessed.
RESULTS: After RP, 101 men (50%) had nonindolent cancer. Multifocal and bilateral tumors were present in 81% and 68% of patients, respectively. MRI indicated extensive disease in 16 (8%). MRI sensitivity to locate PCA ranged from 2% to 20%, and specificity from 91% to 95%. On univariate analysis, MRI evidence of extracapsular extension (P = .027) and extensive disease (P = .001) were associated with nonindolent cancer. On multivariate analysis, only the latter remained as significant predictor (P = .0018).
CONCLUSIONS: Transrectal biopsy identified men with indolent tumors favorable for focal treatment in 50% of cases. MRI findings of extracapsular extension and extensive tumor involving more than half of the gland are associated with unfavorable features, and may be useful in excluding patients from focal treatment. According to these data, endorectal MRI is not sufficient to localize small tumors for focal treatment. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19643467      PMCID: PMC3651887          DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  26 in total

1.  Early stage prostate cancer--do we have a problem with over-detection, overtreatment or both?

Authors:  Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy.

Authors:  E David Crawford; Shandra S Wilson; Kathleen C Torkko; Daisaku Hirano; J Scott Stewart; Craig Brammell; R Storey Wilson; Nozomu Kawata; Holly Sullivan; M Scott Lucia; Priya N Werahera
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 3.  The changing face of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Judd W Moul; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Claire Hardie; Chris Parker; Andrew Norman; Ros Eeles; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; David Dearnaley
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Y Goto; M Ohori; A Arakawa; M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Dedifferentiation of prostate cancer grade with time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; H B Carter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; R P Myers; J E Oesterling
Journal:  Semin Surg Oncol       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb

8.  Surveillance and deferred treatment for localized prostate cancer. Population based study in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden.

Authors:  Pär Stattin; Erik Holmberg; Ola Bratt; Jan Adolfsson; Jan-Erik Johansson; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-10-18       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests.

Authors:  M Ohori; T M Wheeler; J K Dunn; T A Stamey; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Focal therapy of prostate cancer: evidence-based analysis for modern selection criteria.

Authors:  Michael R Abern; Matvey Tsivian; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization.

Authors:  Andrea Billing; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Alexander Roosen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Practice patterns in the management of prostate cancer in Spain: results from a national survey among radiation oncologists in 2009.

Authors:  Almudena Zapatero; José López-Torrecilla; Ismael Herruzo; Felipe A Calvo
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  PSA density lower cutoff value as a tool to exclude pathologic upstaging in initially diagnosed unilateral prostate cancer: impact on hemiablative focal therapy.

Authors:  Thomas Hofner; Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Adel Alrabadi; Sascha Pahernik; Boris Hadaschik; Nina Wagener; Nenad Djakovic; Axel Haferkamp; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  MRI for men undergoing active surveillance or with rising PSA and negative biopsies.

Authors:  Orit Raz; Masoom Haider; John Trachtenberg; Dan Leibovici; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel.

Authors:  Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Wrong to be Right: Margin Laterality is an Independent Predictor of Biochemical Failure After Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jung J Kang; Robert E Reiter; Nicolas Kummer; Jean DeKernion; Michael L Steinberg; Christopher R King
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.339

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Integrating multiparametric prostate MRI into clinical practice.

Authors:  A R Padhani
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.