Literature DB >> 21933336

Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Amita Shukla-Dave1, Hedvig Hricak, Oguz Akin, Changhong Yu, Kristen L Zakian, Kazuma Udo, Peter T Scardino, James Eastham, Michael W Kattan.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Prognosis (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? Nomograms are available that combine clinical and biopsy findings to predict the probability of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in patients with clinically low-risk disease. Based on data from patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <20 ng/ml, our group developed the first nomogram models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that incorporated clinical data, detailed biopsy data and findings from MRI or MRI/MRSI (BJU Int. 2007;99(4):786-93). When tested retrospectively, these MR models performed significantly better than standard clinical models with and without detailed biopsy data. We prospectively validated the previously published MR-based nomogram models in a population of patients with Gleason score 6, clinical stage ≤ T2a and PSA <10 ng/ml. Based on data from this same population, we also developed two new models for predicting insignificant prostate cancer that combine MR findings and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Upon initial testing, the new MR models performed significantly better than a clinical model lacking detailed biopsy data.
OBJECTIVES: • To validate previously published nomograms for predicting insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) that incorporate clinical data, percentage of biopsy cores positive (%BC+) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI/MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) results. • We also designed new nomogram models incorporating magnetic resonance results and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Nomograms for predicting insignificant PCa can help physicians counsel patients with clinically low-risk disease who are choosing between active surveillance and definitive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In total, 181 low-risk PCa patients (clinical stage T1c-T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score of 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery. • For MRI and MRI/MRSI, the probability of insignificant PCa was recorded prospectively and independently by two radiologists on a scale from 0 (definitely insignificant) to 3 (definitely significant PCa). • Insignificant PCa was defined on surgical pathology. • There were four models incorporating MRI or MRI/MRSI and clinical data with and without %BC+ that were compared with a base clinical model without %BC and a more comprehensive clinical model with %BC+. Prediction accuracy was assessed using areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves.
RESULTS: • At pathology, 27% of patients had insignificant PCa, and the Gleason score was upgraded in 56.4% of patients. • For both readers, all magnetic resonance models performed significantly better than the base clinical model (P ≤ 0.05 for all) and similarly to the more comprehensive clinical model.
CONCLUSIONS: • Existing models incorporating magnetic resonance data, clinical data and %BC+ for predicting the probability of insignificant PCa were validated. • All MR-inclusive models performed significantly better than the base clinical model.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21933336      PMCID: PMC3270152          DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x

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


  32 in total

1.  Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Aliya Qayyum; Fergus V Coakley; Ying Lu; Jeffrey D Olpin; Louis Wu; Benjamin M Yeh; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Correlation between visual clues, objective architectural features, and interobserver agreement in prostate cancer.

Authors:  C di Loreto; B Fitzpatrick; S Underhill; D H Kim; H E Dytch; H Galera-Davidson; M Bibbo
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  Sampling, submission, and report format for multiple prostate biopsies: a 1999 survey.

Authors:  K A Iczkowski; D G Bostwick
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Tobias Franiel; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Kazuma Udo; James Eastham; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Predicting clinical end points: treatment nomograms in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christopher J Di Blasio; Audrey C Rhee; Daniel Cho; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.929

6.  Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Chronic prostatitis: MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging findings--initial observations.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Steven C Eberhardt; Semra Olgac; Manickam Muruganandham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging.

Authors:  Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  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

View more
  41 in total

1.  Identification of men with the highest risk of early disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Debasish Sundi; Vinson Wang; Phillip M Pierorazio; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Phuoc T Tran; Ashley E Ross; Trinity J Bivalacqua
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 2.  Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment.

Authors:  R J Caras; Joseph R Sterbis
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

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

Review 4.  Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2016

5.  Role of active surveillance in the management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Allison S Glass; Matthew R Cooperberg; Maxwell V Meng; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

Review 6.  Concomitant bladder cancer and prostate cancer: challenges and controversies.

Authors:  Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Liang Cheng; Francesco Montorsi; Maria Scarpelli; Maria R Raspollini; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  François Marliere; Philippe Puech; Ahmed Benkirane; Arnauld Villers; Laurent Lemaitre; Xavier Leroy; Nacim Betrouni; Adil Ouzzane
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Is clinical stage T2c prostate cancer an intermediate- or high-risk disease?

Authors:  Zachary Klaassen; Abhay A Singh; Lauren E Howard; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Alan Partin; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.