Adil Ouzzane1, Raphaele Renard-Penna2, François Marliere2, Pierre Mozer2, Jonathan Olivier2, Johann Barkatz2, Philippe Puech2, Arnauld Villers2. 1. Department of Urology (AO, FM, JO, AV), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Department of Radiology (PP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Inserm U1189 ONCO-THAI, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille (AO, PP, AV), Loos, France; Department of Radiology (RR-P), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris VI, Paris, France; Department of Urology (PM), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris VI, Paris, France. Electronic address: adil-ouzzane@orange.fr. 2. Department of Urology (AO, FM, JO, AV), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Department of Radiology (PP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France; Inserm U1189 ONCO-THAI, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille (AO, PP, AV), Loos, France; Department of Radiology (RR-P), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris VI, Paris, France; Department of Urology (PM), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, University Paris VI, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current selection criteria for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy underestimate prostate cancer volume and grade. We investigated the role of additional magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in reclassifying patients eligible for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a study at 2 institutions in a total of 281 men with increased prostate specific antigen. All men met certain criteria, including 1) prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging, 12-core transrectal systematic biopsy and 2 additional magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies of lesions suspicious for cancer during the same sequence as systematic biopsy, and 2) eligibility for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy results. Criteria for active surveillance were prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, no Gleason grade 4/5, 5 mm or less involvement of any biopsy core and 2 or fewer positive systematic biopsy cores. Patient characteristics were compared between reclassified and nonreclassified groups based on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy results. RESULTS: On magnetic resonance imaging 58% of the 281 patients had suspicious lesions. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy was positive for cancer in 81 of 163 patients (50%). Of 281 patients 28 (10%) were reclassified by magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy as ineligible for active surveillance based on Gleason score in 8, cancer length in 20 and Gleason score plus cancer length in 9. Suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were in the anterior part of the prostate in 15 of the 28 men (54%). Reclassified patients had a smaller prostate volume (37 vs 52 cc) and were older (66.5 vs 63 years) than those who were not reclassified (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy reclassified 10% of patients who were eligible for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy. Its incorporation into the active surveillance eligibility criteria may decrease the risk of reclassification to higher stages during followup.
PURPOSE: Current selection criteria for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy underestimate prostate cancer volume and grade. We investigated the role of additional magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in reclassifying patients eligible for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a study at 2 institutions in a total of 281 men with increased prostate specific antigen. All men met certain criteria, including 1) prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging, 12-core transrectal systematic biopsy and 2 additional magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies of lesions suspicious for cancer during the same sequence as systematic biopsy, and 2) eligibility for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy results. Criteria for active surveillance were prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, no Gleason grade 4/5, 5 mm or less involvement of any biopsy core and 2 or fewer positive systematic biopsy cores. Patient characteristics were compared between reclassified and nonreclassified groups based on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy results. RESULTS: On magnetic resonance imaging 58% of the 281 patients had suspicious lesions. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy was positive for cancer in 81 of 163 patients (50%). Of 281 patients 28 (10%) were reclassified by magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy as ineligible for active surveillance based on Gleason score in 8, cancer length in 20 and Gleason score plus cancer length in 9. Suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were in the anterior part of the prostate in 15 of the 28 men (54%). Reclassified patients had a smaller prostate volume (37 vs 52 cc) and were older (66.5 vs 63 years) than those who were not reclassified (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy reclassified 10% of patients who were eligible for active surveillance based on systematic biopsy. Its incorporation into the active surveillance eligibility criteria may decrease the risk of reclassification to higher stages during followup.
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel B Dix; Andrew M McDonald; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Urology Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: J P Radtke; T H Kuru; D Bonekamp; M T Freitag; M B Wolf; C D Alt; G Hatiboglu; S Boxler; S Pahernik; W Roth; M C Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Nooshin Ghavami; Yipeng Hu; Eli Gibson; Ester Bonmati; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Dean C Barratt Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 8.545