Aaron Reed1, Luca F Valle1, Uma Shankavaram1, Andra Krauze1, Aradhana Kaushal1, Erica Schott1, Theresa Cooley-Zgela1, Bradford Wood2, Peter Pinto3, Peter Choyke4, Baris Turkbey4, Deborah E Citrin5. 1. Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: citrind@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) has recently been compared with the standard of care extended sextant ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (SOC-Bx), with the former associated with an increased rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The present study sought to determine the influence of MRI-Bx on radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients who had received radiation treatment and had undergone SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx at our institution were included. Using the clinical T stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score, patients were categorized into National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups and radiation treatment or ADT recommendations assigned. Intensification of the recommended treatment after multiparametric MRI, SOC-Bx, and MRI-Bx was evaluated. RESULTS: From January 2008 to January 2016, 73 patients received radiation therapy at our institution after undergoing a simultaneous SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx (n=47 with previous SOC-Bx). Repeat SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx resulted in frequent upgrading compared with previous SOC-Bx (Gleason score 7, 6.7% vs 44.6%; P<.001; Gleason score 8-10, 2.1% vs 38%; P<.001). MRI-Bx increased the proportion of patients classified as very high risk from 24.7% to 41.1% (P=.027). Compared with SOC-Bx alone, including the MRI-Bx findings resulted in a greater percentage of pathologically positive cores (mean 37% vs 44%). Incorporation of multiparametric MRI and MRI-Bx results increased the recommended use and duration of ADT (duration increased in 28 of 73 patients and ADT was added for 8 of 73 patients). CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for radiation treatment, MRI-Bx resulted in an increase in the percentage of positive cores, Gleason score, and risk grouping. The benefit of treatment intensification in accordance with the MRI-Bx findings is unknown. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) has recently been compared with the standard of care extended sextant ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (SOC-Bx), with the former associated with an increased rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The present study sought to determine the influence of MRI-Bx on radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients who had received radiation treatment and had undergone SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx at our institution were included. Using the clinical T stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score, patients were categorized into National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups and radiation treatment or ADT recommendations assigned. Intensification of the recommended treatment after multiparametric MRI, SOC-Bx, and MRI-Bx was evaluated. RESULTS: From January 2008 to January 2016, 73 patients received radiation therapy at our institution after undergoing a simultaneous SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx (n=47 with previous SOC-Bx). Repeat SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx resulted in frequent upgrading compared with previous SOC-Bx (Gleason score 7, 6.7% vs 44.6%; P<.001; Gleason score 8-10, 2.1% vs 38%; P<.001). MRI-Bx increased the proportion of patients classified as very high risk from 24.7% to 41.1% (P=.027). Compared with SOC-Bx alone, including the MRI-Bx findings resulted in a greater percentage of pathologically positive cores (mean 37% vs 44%). Incorporation of multiparametric MRI and MRI-Bx results increased the recommended use and duration of ADT (duration increased in 28 of 73 patients and ADT was added for 8 of 73 patients). CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for radiation treatment, MRI-Bx resulted in an increase in the percentage of positive cores, Gleason score, and risk grouping. The benefit of treatment intensification in accordance with the MRI-Bx findings is unknown. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Jeremy P Grummet; Mahesha Weerakoon; Sean Huang; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Mark Frydenberg; Daniel A Moon; Mary O'Reilly; Declan Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: B Djavan; M Waldert; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; C Seitz; M Remzi; A Borkowski; C Schulman; M Marberger Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Arvin K George; Rachel Rubin; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Howard L Parnes; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Jennifer Ho; Anthony Hoang; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Harsh Agarwal; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana Kaushal; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cedric Panje; Thierry Panje; Paul Martin Putora; Suk-Kyum Kim; Sarah Haile; Daniel M Aebersold; Ludwig Plasswilm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-02-22 Impact factor: 3.481
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