Pedro Recabal1, Melissa Assel2, Daniel D Sjoberg2, Daniel Lee3, Vincent P Laudone4, Karim Touijer4, James A Eastham4, Hebert A Vargas5, Jonathan Coleman4, Behfar Ehdaie6. 1. Urology Service, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Urology Service, Fundacion Arturo Lopez Perez, Santiago, Chile. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Urology, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 4. Urology Service, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Urology Service, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: ehdaieb@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies may replace systematic biopsies to detect higher grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) and whether biopsy may be avoided based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging among men with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with previously diagnosed Gleason score 3+3 prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a followup prostate biopsy. Suspicion for higher grade cancer was scored on a standardized 5-point scale. All patients underwent a systematic biopsy. Patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regions of interest also underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy. The detection rate of higher grade cancer was estimated for different multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores with the 3 biopsy strategies of systematic, magnetic resonance imaging targeted and combined. RESULTS: Of 206 consecutive men on active surveillance 135 (66%) had a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging region of interest. Overall, higher grade cancer was detected in 72 (35%) men. A higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score was associated with an increased probability of detecting higher grade cancer (Wilcoxon-type trend test p <0.0001). Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy detected higher grade cancer in 23% of men. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy alone missed higher grade cancers in 17%, 12% and 10% of patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores of 3, 4 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies increased the detection of higher grade cancer among men on active surveillance compared to systematic biopsy alone. However, a clinically relevant proportion of higher grade cancer was detected using only systematic biopsy. Despite the improved detection of disease progression using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy, systematic biopsy cannot be excluded as part of surveillance for men with low risk prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We determined whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies may replace systematic biopsies to detect higher grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 7 or greater) and whether biopsy may be avoided based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging among men with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with previously diagnosed Gleason score 3+3 prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a followup prostate biopsy. Suspicion for higher grade cancer was scored on a standardized 5-point scale. All patients underwent a systematic biopsy. Patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regions of interest also underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy. The detection rate of higher grade cancer was estimated for different multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores with the 3 biopsy strategies of systematic, magnetic resonance imaging targeted and combined. RESULTS: Of 206 consecutive men on active surveillance 135 (66%) had a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging region of interest. Overall, higher grade cancer was detected in 72 (35%) men. A higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score was associated with an increased probability of detecting higher grade cancer (Wilcoxon-type trend test p <0.0001). Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy detected higher grade cancer in 23% of men. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy alone missed higher grade cancers in 17%, 12% and 10% of patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores of 3, 4 and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies increased the detection of higher grade cancer among men on active surveillance compared to systematic biopsy alone. However, a clinically relevant proportion of higher grade cancer was detected using only systematic biopsy. Despite the improved detection of disease progression using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy, systematic biopsy cannot be excluded as part of surveillance for men with low risk prostate cancer.
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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
Authors: Kevin Martell; Hans Chung; Gerard Morton; Danny Vesprini; Chia-Lin Tseng; Ewa Szumacher; Patrick Cheung; Will Chu; Stanley Liu; Andrew Loblaw Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 2.052