Pat F Fulgham1, Daniel B Rukstalis2, Ismail Baris Turkbey3, Jonathan N Rubenstein4, Samir Taneja5, Peter R Carroll6, Peter A Pinto3, Marc A Bjurlin5, Scott Eggener7. 1. Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: pfulgham@airmail.net. 2. Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 6. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calfornia. 7. The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.
PURPOSE: We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. RESULTS: At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Chen Liu; Teli Liu; Zhongyi Zhang; Ning Zhang; Peng Du; Yong Yang; Yiqiang Liu; Wei Yu; Nan Li; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Hua Zhu; Kun Yan; Zhi Yang Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Charles E McCulloch; Jordan M Anaokar; Sandeep Arora; Nimrod S Barashi; Jelle O Barentsz; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Michael T Booker; Vaughn G Braxton; Peter R Carroll; David D Casalino; Silvia D Chang; Fergus V Coakley; Ravjot Dhatt; Steven C Eberhardt; Bryan R Foster; Adam T Froemming; Jurgen J Fütterer; Dhakshina M Ganeshan; Mark R Gertner; Lori Mankowski Gettle; Sangeet Ghai; Rajan T Gupta; Michael E Hahn; Roozbeh Houshyar; Candice Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Chandana Lall; Daniel J A Margolis; Stephen E McRae; Aytekin Oto; Rosaleen B Parsons; Nayana U Patel; Peter A Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Benjamin Spilseth; Juliana B Starcevich; Varaha S Tammisetti; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Sadhna Verma; John F Ward; Christopher A Warlick; Andrew R Weinberger; Jinxing Yu; Ronald J Zagoria; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert T Dess; Krithika Suresh; Michael J Zelefsky; Stephen J Freedland; Brandon A Mahal; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brian J Davis; Eric M Horwitz; Martha K Terris; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; William C Jackson; Jason W D Hearn; Curtiland Deville; Theodore L DeWeese; Stephen Greco; Todd R McNutt; Daniel Y Song; Yilun Sun; Rohit Mehra; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Todd M Morgan; Paul L Nguyen; Felix Y Feng; Vidit Sharma; Phuoc T Tran; Bradley J Stish; Thomas M Pisansky; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Fabio Ynoe Moraes; Alejandro Berlin; Antonio Finelli; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Briganti; Peter R Carroll; R Jeffrey Karnes; Michael W Kattan; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777