Literature DB >> 21176083

Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme.

Guillaume Ploussard1, Evanguelos Xylinas, Xavier Durand, Idir Ouzaïd, Yves Allory, Mohamed Bouanane, Claude-Clément Abbou, Laurent Salomon, Alexandre de la Taille.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Diagnostic (case series). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
OBJECTIVE: • To investigate the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selecting patients for active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We identified prostate cancers patients who had undergone a 21-core biopsy scheme and fulfilled the criteria as follows: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≤ 10 ng/mL, T1-T2a disease, a Gleason score ≤ 6, <3 positive cores and tumour length per core <3 mm. • We included 96 patients who underwent a radical prostatectomy (RP) and a prostate MRI before surgery. • The main end point of the study was the unfavourable disease features at RP, with or without the use of MRI as AS inclusion criterion.
RESULTS: • Mean age and mean PSA were 62.4 years and 6.1 ng/mL, respectively. Prostate cancer was staged pT3 in 17.7% of cases. • The rate of unfavourable disease (pT3-4 and/or Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3) was 24.0%. A T3 disease on MRI was noted in 28 men (29.2%). MRI was not a significant predictor of pT3 disease in RP specimens (P = 0.980), rate of unfavourable disease (P = 0.604), positive surgical margins (P = 0.750) or Gleason upgrading (P = 0.314). • In a logistic regression model, no preoperative parameter was an independent predictor of unfavourable disease in the RP specimen. • After a mean follow-up of 29 months, the recurrence-free survival (RFS) was statistically equivalent between men with T3 on MRI and those with T1-T2 disease (P = 0.853).
CONCLUSION: • The results of the present study emphasize that, when the selection of patients for AS is based on an extended 21-core biopsy scheme, and uses the most stringent inclusion criteria, MRI does not improve the prediction of high-risk and/or non organ-confined disease in a RP specimen.
© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21176083     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Asim Afaq; Debra Goldman; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Amita Shukla-Dave; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for pre-treatment local staging of prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Jennifer Salerno; Antonio Finelli; Chris Morash; Scott C Morgan; Nicholas Power; Nichola Schieda; Masoom A Haider
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Abnormal findings on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging predict subsequent biopsy upgrade in patients with low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Authors:  Robert R Flavell; Antonio C Westphalen; Carmin Liang; Christopher C Sotto; Susan M Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; Zhen J Wang; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2014-10

5.  Can high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?

Authors:  Matthias C Roethke; Michaela Kniess; Sascha Kaufmann; Matthias P Lichy; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Arnulf Stenzl; David Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Predicting Pathological Features at Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Ottavio de Cobelli; Daniela Terracciano; Elena Tagliabue; Sara Raimondi; Danilo Bottero; Antonio Cioffi; Barbara Jereczek-Fossa; Giuseppe Petralia; Giovanni Cordima; Gilberto Laurino Almeida; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Carlo Buonerba; Deliu Victor Matei; Giuseppe Renne; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Matteo Ferro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Lee; Kyo Chul Koo; Dong Hoon Lee; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2015-10-08

8.  Prostate MRI: a national survey of Urologist's attitudes and perceptions.

Authors:  Brandon J Manley; John A Brockman; Valary T Raup; Kathryn J Fowler; Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

9.  Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging Image Segmentation for Analyzing the Effect of Edaravone on the Vascular Endothelial Function in Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarction.

Authors:  Jie Yin; Hong Chang; Dongmei Wang; Haifei Li; Aibing Yin
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.161

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.