Erik Rud1, Eduard Baco2, Dagmar Klotz3, Kristin Rennesund2, Aud Svindland4, Viktor Berge2, Eskild Lundeby2, Nicolai Wessel2, Jon-Roar Hoff2, Rolf Eigil Berg2, Lien Diep5, Heidi B Eggesbø6, Lars Magne Eri7. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: p.e.rud@medisin.uio.no. 2. Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Health Care Economics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 7. Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to help the surgeon tailor radical prostatectomy (RP) more accurately according to the location and extent of the tumour and thereby reduce the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of performing MRI prior to RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-institution randomised trial included 438 patients between December 2009 and June 2012 who were scheduled forrobot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01347320). INTERVENTION: Patients were preoperatively randomly assigned to non-MRI or MRI groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was the difference in the PSM rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were the rates of PSMs in clinical subgroups. Summary statistics were extracted from descriptive analyses, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and logistic regression was used to analyse the data according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 216 patients were randomised to non-MRI; 222 were randomised to MRI. There were 49 cases (23%) of PSMs in the non-MRI group and 43 cases (19%) in the MRI group (p=0.4). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 15% and 4%, respectively. Patients with cT1 constituted 55% of the cohort, in which the rate of PSMs was 27% in the non-MRI group and 16% in the MRI group (p=0.035). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 41% and 11%, respectively. A limitation was suboptimal communication between the radiologist and urologist. CONCLUSIONS:MRI prior to RP did not reduce the overall risk for PSMs in this patient cohort. However, at subgroup analysis we observed a possible benefit of MRI in patients with cT1. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study could not demonstrate a definite benefit of performing magnetic resonance imaging before surgery for all patients. However, there was a possible improved result in patients in which physical examination could not detect the cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to help the surgeon tailor radical prostatectomy (RP) more accurately according to the location and extent of the tumour and thereby reduce the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of performing MRI prior to RP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-institution randomised trial included 438 patients between December 2009 and June 2012 who were scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01347320). INTERVENTION: Patients were preoperatively randomly assigned to non-MRI or MRI groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was the difference in the PSM rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were the rates of PSMs in clinical subgroups. Summary statistics were extracted from descriptive analyses, chi-square, or Fisher exact test, and logistic regression was used to analyse the data according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 216 patients were randomised to non-MRI; 222 were randomised to MRI. There were 49 cases (23%) of PSMs in the non-MRI group and 43 cases (19%) in the MRI group (p=0.4). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 15% and 4%, respectively. Patients with cT1 constituted 55% of the cohort, in which the rate of PSMs was 27% in the non-MRI group and 16% in the MRI group (p=0.035). The relative and absolute risk reduction was 41% and 11%, respectively. A limitation was suboptimal communication between the radiologist and urologist. CONCLUSIONS: MRI prior to RP did not reduce the overall risk for PSMs in this patient cohort. However, at subgroup analysis we observed a possible benefit of MRI in patients with cT1. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study could not demonstrate a definite benefit of performing magnetic resonance imaging before surgery for all patients. However, there was a possible improved result in patients in which physical examination could not detect the cancer.
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Brunno C F Sanches; Ana Luiza Lalli; Wilmar Azal Neto; Athanase Billis; Leonardo Oliveira Reis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jennifer Salerno; Antonio Finelli; Chris Morash; Scott C Morgan; Nicholas Power; Nichola Schieda; Masoom A Haider Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jethro C C Kwong; Adree Khondker; Christopher Tran; Emily Evans; Adrian I Cozma; Ashkan Javidan; Amna Ali; Munir Jamal; Thomas Short; Frank Papanikolaou; John R Srigley; Benjamin Fine; Andrew Feifer Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Alessandrino; Alexander D J Baur; Lars Boesen; Felipe Boschini Franco; David Bonekamp; Riccardo Campa; Hannes Cash; Violeta Catalá; Sebastien Crouzet; Sounil Dinnoo; James Eastham; Fiona M Fennessy; Kamyar Ghabili; Markus Hohenfellner; Angelique W Levi; Xinge Ji; Vibeke Løgager; Daniel J Margolis; Paul C Moldovan; Valeria Panebianco; Tobias Penzkofer; Philippe Puech; Jan Philipp Radtke; Olivier Rouvière; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Preston C Sprenkle; Clare M Tempany; Joan C Vilanova; Jeffrey Weinreb; Hedvig Hricak; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Iulia Andras; Emanuel Darius Cata; Andreea Serban; Pierre Kadula; Teodora Telecan; Maximilian Buzoianu; Maria Bungardean; Dan Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 2.430