Literature DB >> 25100337

Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer.

Tatsuo Gondo1, Hedvig Hricak, Evis Sala, Junting Zheng, Chaya S Moskowitz, Melanie Bernstein, James A Eastham, Hebert Alberto Vargas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of pre-treatment 3-Tesla (3T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for predicting Gleason score (GS) downgrading after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with GS 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 304 patients with biopsy-proven GS 3 + 4 PCa who underwent mpMRI before RP. On T2-weighted imaging and three mpMRI combinations (T2-weighted imaging + diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging + dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI [DCE-MRI], and T2-weighted imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI), two radiologists (R1/R2) scored the presence of a dominant tumour using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = definitely absent to 5 = definitely present). Diagnostic performance in identifying downgrading was evaluated via areas under the curves (AUCs). Predictive accuracies of multivariate models were calculated.
RESULTS: In predicting downgrading, T2-weighted imaging + DWI (AUC = 0.89/0.85 for R1/R2) performed significantly better than T2-weighted imaging alone (AUC = 0.72/0.73; p < 0.001/p = 0.02 for R1/R2), while T2-weighted imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI (AUC = 0.89/0.84 for R1/R2) performed no better than T2-weighted imaging + DWI (p = 0.48/p > 0.99 for R1/R2). On multivariate analysis, the clinical + mpMRI model incorporating T2-weighted imaging + DWI (AUC = 0.92/0.88 for R1/R2) predicted downgrading significantly better than the clinical model (AUC = 0.73; p < 0.001 for R1/R2).
CONCLUSION: mpMRI improves the ability to identify a subgroup of patients with Gleason 3 + 4 PCa on biopsy who are candidates for active surveillance. DCE-MRI (compared to T2 + DWI) offered no additional benefit to the prediction of downgrading. KEY POINTS: Diagnostic performance of T2-weighted-imaging + DWI was better than T2-weighted-imaging alone. Diagnostic performance of T2-weighted-imaging + DWI was similar to T2-weighted-imaging + DWI + DCE-MRI. Combining clinical and T2-weighted-imaging + DWI features best predicted GS downgrading. mpMRI might prevent overtreatment by increasing eligibility for PCa active surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25100337     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3367-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  31 in total

1.  A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.450

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.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer.

Authors:  Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ayman S Moussa; Jianbo Li; Meghan Soriano; Eric A Klein; Fei Dong; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 8.  Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.243

9.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  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

View more
  13 in total

1.  Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

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

2.  Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores.

Authors:  Andreas Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Harini Veeraraghavan; Duc Fehr; Junting Zheng; Debra Goldman; Chaya Moskowitz; Samson W Fine; Victor E Reuter; James Eastham; Evis Sala; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Prostate cancer bone metastases on staging prostate MRI: prevalence and clinical features associated with their diagnosis.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Rachel Schor-Bardach; Niamh Long; Anna N Kirzner; Jane D Cunningham; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Ramon E Sosa; Evis Sala; David M Panicek; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-01

Review 4.  The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates.

Authors:  R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  Risk of Metastasis in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3+4) prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sungmin Woo; Sang Youn Kim; Joongyub Lee; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Madhur Nayan; Filipe L F Carvalho; Adam S Feldman
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Defining the index lesion for potential salvage partial or hemi-gland ablation after radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gregory T Chesnut; Amy L Tin; Arjun Sivaraman; Toshikazu Takeda; Taehyoung Lee; Jonathan Fainberg; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Samson W Fine; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Jonathan A Coleman; Karim A Touijer; Michael J Zelefsky; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 2.954

10.  Association between a 17-gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Authors:  Michael S Leapman; Antonio C Westphalen; Niloufar Ameli; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Phillip G Febbo; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.