Literature DB >> 23017866

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

Hebert Alberto Vargas1, Oguz Akin, Asim Afaq, Debra Goldman, Junting Zheng, Chaya S Moskowitz, Amita Shukla-Dave, James Eastham, Peter Scardino, Hedvig Hricak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A barrier to the acceptance of active surveillance for men with prostate cancer is the risk of underestimating the cancer burden on initial biopsy. We assessed the value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in predicting upgrading on confirmatory biopsy in men with low risk prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 388 consecutive men (mean age 60.6 years, range 33 to 89) with clinically low risk prostate cancer (initial biopsy Gleason score 6 or less, prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, clinical stage T2a or less) underwent endorectal magnetic resonance imaging before confirmatory biopsy. Three radiologists independently and retrospectively scored tumor visibility on endorectal magnetic resonance imaging using a 5-point scale (1-definitely no tumor to 5-definitely tumor). Inter-reader agreement was assessed with weighted kappa statistics. Associations between magnetic resonance imaging scores and confirmatory biopsy findings were evaluated using measures of diagnostic performance and multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: On confirmatory biopsy, Gleason score was upgraded in 79 of 388 (20%) patients. Magnetic resonance imaging scores of 2 or less had a high negative predictive value (0.96-1.0) and specificity (0.95-1.0) for upgrading on confirmatory biopsy. A magnetic resonance imaging score of 5 was highly sensitive for upgrading on confirmatory biopsy (0.87-0.98). At multivariate analysis patients with higher magnetic resonance imaging scores were more likely to have disease upgraded on confirmatory biopsy (odds ratio 2.16-3.97). Inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance were higher for the more experienced readers (kappa 0.41-0.61, AUC 0.76-0.79) than for the least experienced reader (kappa 0.15-0.39, AUC 0.61-0.69). Magnetic resonance imaging performed similarly in predicting low risk and very low risk (Gleason score 6, less than 3 positive cores, less than 50% involvement in all cores) prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to the initial clinical evaluation of men with clinically low risk prostate cancer helps predict findings on confirmatory biopsy and assess eligibility for active surveillance.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23017866      PMCID: PMC5617124          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  25 in total

1.  Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Hyun Moo Lee; Ghee Young Kwon
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Jonas Hugosson; Antti S Rannikko; Teuvo L Tammela; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Ryan K Berglund; Timothy A Masterson; Kinjal C Vora; Scott E Eggener; James A Eastham; Bertrand D Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  N B Delongchamps; F Beuvon; D Eiss; T Flam; N Muradyan; M Zerbib; M Peyromaure; F Cornud
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 5.554

5.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment.

Authors:  Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Declining death rates reflect progress against cancer.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Elizabeth Ward; Michael Thun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers.

Authors:  Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Laibao Sun; Martin J Yaffe; John Trachtenberg; Masoom A Haider
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  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

View more
  70 in total

Review 1.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

Review 2.  Transperineal biopsy of the prostate--is this the future?

Authors:  Dwayne T S Chang; Benjamin Challacombe; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  [Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  K Lellig; B Beyer; M Graefen; D Zaak; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Standards for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 6.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment.

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

Review 7.  MR/US Fusion Technology: What Makes It Tick?

Authors:  Srinivas Vourganti; Norman Starkweather; Andrij Wojtowycz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Hayet Amalou; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.464

9.  Prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients treated for testosterone deficiency while on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Takeshi Hashimoto; Krishnan Rahul; Toshikazu Takeda; Nicole Benfante; John P Mulhall; Hedvig Hricak; James A Eastham; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 10.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.