Annerleim Walton Diaz1, Nabeel Ahmad Shakir1, Arvin K George1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Baris Turkbey2, Jason T Rothwax1, Lambros Stamatakis1, Cheng William Hong3, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui1, Chinonyerem Okoro1, Dima Raskolnikov1, Daniel Su1, Joanna Shih4, Hui Han1, Howard L Parnes5, Maria J Merino6, Richard M Simon4, Bradford J Wood3, Peter L Choyke2, Peter A Pinto7. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 6. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 7. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the performance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy (FB) for monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing mp-MRI and FB of target lesions identified on mp-MRI between August 2007 and August 2014 were reviewed. Patients meeting AS criteria (Clinical stage T1c, Gleason grade ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen density ≤ 0.15, tumor involving ≤ 2 cores, and ≤ 50% involvement of any single core) based on extended sextant 12-core TRUS biopsy (systematic biopsy [SB]) were included. They were followed with subsequent 12-core biopsy as well as mp-MRI and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy at follow-up visits until Gleason score progression (Gleason ≥ 7 in either 12-core or MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy). We evaluated whether progression seen on mp-MRI (defined as an increase in suspicion level, largest lesion diameter, or number of lesions) was predictive of Gleason score progression. RESULTS: Of 152 patients meeting AS criteria on initial SB (mean age of 61.4 years and mean prostate-specific antigen level of 5.26 ng/ml), 34 (22.4%) had Gleason score ≥ 7 on confirmatory SB/FB. Of the 118 remaining patients, 58 chose AS and had at least 1 subsequent mp-MRI with SB/FB (median follow-up = 16.1 months). Gleason progression was subsequently documented in 17 (29%) of these men, in all cases to Gleason 3+4. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of mp-MRI for Gleason progression was 53% (95% CI: 28%-77%) and 80% (95% CI: 65%-91%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of mp-MRI for increase in Gleason were also 53% and 80%, respectively. The number needed to biopsy to detect 1 Gleason progression was 8.74 for SB vs. 2.9 for FB. CONCLUSIONS: Stable findings on mp-MRI are associated with Gleason score stability. mp-MRI appears promising as a useful aid for reducing the number of biopsies in the management of patients on AS. A prospective evaluation of mp-MRI as a screen to reduce biopsies in the follow-up of men on AS appears warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the performance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy (FB) for monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients undergoing mp-MRI and FB of target lesions identified on mp-MRI between August 2007 and August 2014 were reviewed. Patients meeting AS criteria (Clinical stage T1c, Gleason grade ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen density ≤ 0.15, tumor involving ≤ 2 cores, and ≤ 50% involvement of any single core) based on extended sextant 12-core TRUS biopsy (systematic biopsy [SB]) were included. They were followed with subsequent 12-core biopsy as well as mp-MRI and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy at follow-up visits until Gleason score progression (Gleason ≥ 7 in either 12-core or MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy). We evaluated whether progression seen on mp-MRI (defined as an increase in suspicion level, largest lesion diameter, or number of lesions) was predictive of Gleason score progression. RESULTS: Of 152 patients meeting AS criteria on initial SB (mean age of 61.4 years and mean prostate-specific antigen level of 5.26 ng/ml), 34 (22.4%) had Gleason score ≥ 7 on confirmatory SB/FB. Of the 118 remaining patients, 58 chose AS and had at least 1 subsequent mp-MRI with SB/FB (median follow-up = 16.1 months). Gleason progression was subsequently documented in 17 (29%) of these men, in all cases to Gleason 3+4. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of mp-MRI for Gleason progression was 53% (95% CI: 28%-77%) and 80% (95% CI: 65%-91%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of mp-MRI for increase in Gleason were also 53% and 80%, respectively. The number needed to biopsy to detect 1 Gleason progression was 8.74 for SB vs. 2.9 for FB. CONCLUSIONS: Stable findings on mp-MRI are associated with Gleason score stability. mp-MRI appears promising as a useful aid for reducing the number of biopsies in the management of patients on AS. A prospective evaluation of mp-MRI as a screen to reduce biopsies in the follow-up of men on AS appears warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Management; PSA; fusion biopsy; prostate cancer
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05