Michael Kongnyuy1, Daniel M Halpern2, Corinne C Liu3, Kaitlin E Kosinski2, David J Habibian4, Anthony T Corcoran2, Aaron E Katz2. 1. Department of Urology, NYU-Winthrop University, 1300 Franklin Ave, Garden City, Mineola, NY, USA. speeditomike@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, NYU-Winthrop University, 1300 Franklin Ave, Garden City, Mineola, NY, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, NYU-Winthrop University, Mineola, NY, USA. 4. St George's University School of Medicine, St. George's, Grenada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to report on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) characteristics of post-primary focal cryosurgery (PFC) patients suspected of biochemical recurrence (BCR) by the Phoenix criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients at our institution who had undergone PFC. Prostate-specific antigen nadir was determined using 2 or more post-PFC values. Suspicion of BCR was determined using the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2 ng/ml). At the discretion of the physician, pre-and post-PFC 3-T mpMRIs were obtained and in a few cases biopsies were performed. RESULTS: Ninety (58.4%) of 154 consecutive patients who underwent PFC were included in our analysis and had a median (range) age and prostate volume of 66.5 (48-82) years and 40.5 (16-175) ml, respectively. Of those suspected of BCR (37/90, 41.1%), with a median time to BCR of 19.9 (7.0-38.5) months, 27 patients (73.0%) underwent a post-PFC mpMRI. Twenty-two (81.5%) of these mpMRIs were found with 24 suspicious lesions. A considerable number (9/24, 37.5%) of these lesions were located in the central gland of the prostate. Seven of 24 lesions exhibited adverse mpMRI characteristic; 4 (16.7%) had capsular contact, 2 (8.2%) showed frank extracapsular extension, and 1 (4.2%) showed seminal vesicle invasion. Five (45.5%) of 11 patients with positive post-PFC mpMRIs were positive on biopsy (4/5, 80% were clinically significant prostate cancer). CONCLUSION: Post-PFC mpMRI, at Phoenix suspicion of BCR, may help identify a significant number of patients failing post-PFC.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to report on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) characteristics of post-primary focal cryosurgery (PFC) patients suspected of biochemical recurrence (BCR) by the Phoenix criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients at our institution who had undergone PFC. Prostate-specific antigen nadir was determined using 2 or more post-PFC values. Suspicion of BCR was determined using the Phoenix criteria (nadir + 2 ng/ml). At the discretion of the physician, pre-and post-PFC 3-T mpMRIs were obtained and in a few cases biopsies were performed. RESULTS: Ninety (58.4%) of 154 consecutive patients who underwent PFC were included in our analysis and had a median (range) age and prostate volume of 66.5 (48-82) years and 40.5 (16-175) ml, respectively. Of those suspected of BCR (37/90, 41.1%), with a median time to BCR of 19.9 (7.0-38.5) months, 27 patients (73.0%) underwent a post-PFC mpMRI. Twenty-two (81.5%) of these mpMRIs were found with 24 suspicious lesions. A considerable number (9/24, 37.5%) of these lesions were located in the central gland of the prostate. Seven of 24 lesions exhibited adverse mpMRI characteristic; 4 (16.7%) had capsular contact, 2 (8.2%) showed frank extracapsular extension, and 1 (4.2%) showed seminal vesicle invasion. Five (45.5%) of 11 patients with positive post-PFC mpMRIs were positive on biopsy (4/5, 80% were clinically significant prostate cancer). CONCLUSION: Post-PFC mpMRI, at Phoenix suspicion of BCR, may help identify a significant number of patients failing post-PFC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biochemical recurrence; Multiparametric MRI; Primary focal cryosurgery; Prostate cancer
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Alampady K Shanbhogue; Annie Wang; Max Xiangtian Kong; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David J Habibian; Corinne C Liu; Alex Dao; Kaitlin E Kosinski; Aaron E Katz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Amir Toussi; Suzanne B Stewart-Merrill; Stephen A Boorjian; Sarah P Psutka; R Houston Thompson; Igor Frank; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Rachel E Carlson; Laureano J Rangel; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter J Boström; Anders S Bjartell; James W F Catto; Scott E Eggener; Hans Lilja; Stacy Loeb; Jack Schalken; Thorsten Schlomm; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; David S K Lu; Mitch Tuttle; Daniel J Margolis; Fuad F ElKhoury; James Sayre; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Azadeh Nazemi; William C Huang; James Wysock; Samir S Taneja; Kent Friedman; Rozalba Gogaj; Herbert Lepor Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-06-21