Ely R Felker1, Jason Wu2, Shyam Natarajan3, Daniel J Margolis1, Steven S Raman1, Jiaoti Huang4, Fred Dorey2, Leonard S Marks5. 1. Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California; Department of Bioengineering, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: lmarks@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed whether changes in serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can help predict the pathological progression of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 49 consecutive men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and again more than 6 months later, each followed by a targeted prostate biopsy, between January 2011 and May 2015. We evaluated whether progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (an increase in index lesion suspicion score, increase in index lesion volume or decrease in index lesion apparent diffusion coefficient) could predict pathological progression (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater on subsequent biopsy, in systematic or targeted cores). Diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was determined with and without clinical data using a binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: The mean interval between baseline and followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 28.3 months (range 11 to 43). Pathological progression occurred in 19 patients (39%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 37%, 90%, 69% and 70%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63. A logistic regression model using clinical information (maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm on baseline biopsy or a prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.15 ng/ml(2) at followup biopsy) had an AUC of 0.87 for predicting pathological progression. The addition of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data significantly improved the AUC to 0.91 (p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging adds incremental value to prostate specific antigen density and baseline cancer core length for predicting Gleason 6 upgrading in men on active surveillance.
PURPOSE: We assessed whether changes in serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can help predict the pathological progression of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 49 consecutive men with Gleason 6 prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and again more than 6 months later, each followed by a targeted prostate biopsy, between January 2011 and May 2015. We evaluated whether progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (an increase in index lesion suspicion score, increase in index lesion volume or decrease in index lesion apparent diffusion coefficient) could predict pathological progression (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater on subsequent biopsy, in systematic or targeted cores). Diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was determined with and without clinical data using a binary logistic regression model. RESULTS: The mean interval between baseline and followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 28.3 months (range 11 to 43). Pathological progression occurred in 19 patients (39%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 37%, 90%, 69% and 70%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63. A logistic regression model using clinical information (maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm on baseline biopsy or a prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.15 ng/ml(2) at followup biopsy) had an AUC of 0.87 for predicting pathological progression. The addition of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data significantly improved the AUC to 0.91 (p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging adds incremental value to prostate specific antigen density and baseline cancer core length for predicting Gleason 6 upgrading in men on active surveillance.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samuel L Rice; Natasha E Wehrli; Fang-Ming Deng; Samir S Taneja Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: David Bonekamp; Susanne Bonekamp; Jeffrey K Mullins; Jonathan I Epstein; H Ballentine Carter; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Samrad Ghavimi; Hamidreza Abdi; Jennifer Waterhouse; Richard Savdie; Silvia Chang; Alison Harris; Lindsay Machan; Martin Gleave; Alan I So; Larry Goldenberg; Peter C Black Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Guan Hee Tan; Antonio Finelli; Ardalan Ahmad; Marian S Wettstein; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Alexandre R Zlotta; Neil E Fleshner; Robert J Hamilton; Girish S Kulkarni; Khaled Ajib; Gregory Nason; Nathan Perlis Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Edward Chang; Tonye A Jones; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Demetrios Simopoulos; Daniel J Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas P Frye; Arvin K George; Amichai Kilchevsky; Mahir Maruf; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Hui Han; Howard L Parnes; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450