PURPOSE: We report magnetic resonance imaging findings among unselected men with low risk prostate cancer before active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled men with low grade, low risk, localized prostate cancer. All patients underwent multiparametric endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and were offered confirmatory biopsy within 1 year of imaging. The primary outcome was the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on identifying patients who were reclassified by confirmatory biopsy as no longer fulfilling active surveillance criteria. We further identified clinical parameters associated with reclassification. The cohort was stratified as patients with 1) normal magnetic resonance imaging, 2) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging concordant with initial biopsy (less than 1 cm) and 3) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging larger than 1 cm. We performed univariate analysis to assess differences in clinical parameters among the groups. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging did not detect cancer in 23 cases (38%) while magnetic resonance imaging and initial biopsy were concordant in 24 (40%). Magnetic resonance imaging detected a 1 cm or larger lesion in 13 patients (22%). Of the cases 18 (32.14%) were reclassified. When no cancer was identified on magnetic resonance imaging, only 2 cases (3.5%) were reclassified. The positive and negative predictive values for magnetic resonance imaging predicting reclassification were 83% (95% CI 73-93) and 81% (95% CI 71-91), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density was increased in patients with lesions larger than 1 cm on magnetic resonance imaging compared to those with no cancer on imaging (median 0.15 vs 0.07 ng/ml/cc, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging appears to have a high yield for predicting reclassification among men who elect active surveillance. Upon confirmation of our results magnetic resonance imaging may be used to better select and guide patients before active surveillance. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: We report magnetic resonance imaging findings among unselected men with low risk prostate cancer before active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled men with low grade, low risk, localized prostate cancer. All patients underwent multiparametric endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and were offered confirmatory biopsy within 1 year of imaging. The primary outcome was the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on identifying patients who were reclassified by confirmatory biopsy as no longer fulfilling active surveillance criteria. We further identified clinical parameters associated with reclassification. The cohort was stratified as patients with 1) normal magnetic resonance imaging, 2) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging concordant with initial biopsy (less than 1 cm) and 3) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging larger than 1 cm. We performed univariate analysis to assess differences in clinical parameters among the groups. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging did not detect cancer in 23 cases (38%) while magnetic resonance imaging and initial biopsy were concordant in 24 (40%). Magnetic resonance imaging detected a 1 cm or larger lesion in 13 patients (22%). Of the cases 18 (32.14%) were reclassified. When no cancer was identified on magnetic resonance imaging, only 2 cases (3.5%) were reclassified. The positive and negative predictive values for magnetic resonance imaging predicting reclassification were 83% (95% CI 73-93) and 81% (95% CI 71-91), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density was increased in patients with lesions larger than 1 cm on magnetic resonance imaging compared to those with no cancer on imaging (median 0.15 vs 0.07 ng/ml/cc, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging appears to have a high yield for predicting reclassification among men who elect active surveillance. Upon confirmation of our results magnetic resonance imaging may be used to better select and guide patients before active surveillance. Copyright Â
Authors: M D Galsky; W Xie; M Nakabayashi; R W Ross; F M Fennessy; C M Tempany; T K Choueiri; K Khine; P W Kantoff; M-E Taplin; W K Oh Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Fainberg; Taehyoung Lee; James Eastham; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; Karim Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Xiaosong Meng; Julien Le Nobin; James S Wysock; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: L M Wong; S Ferrara; S M H Alibhai; A Evans; T Van der Kwast; G Trottier; N Timilshina; A Toi; G Kulkarni; R Hamilton; A Zlotta; N Fleshner; A Finelli Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 5.554