INTRODUCTION: The natural history of prostatic lesions identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is largely unknown. We aimed to describe changes observed over time on serial MRI. METHODS: All patients with ≥2 MRI studies between 2008 and 2015 at our institution were identified. MRI progression was defined as an increase in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS; version 2) or size of existing lesions, or the appearance of a new lesion PIRADS ≥4. Patients on active surveillance (AS) were analyzed for correlation of MRI progression to biopsy reclassification. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients (54 on AS and 29 for diagnostic purposes) underwent serial MRI, with a mean interval of 1.9 years between scans. At baseline, 115 lesions (66 index, 49 non-index) were identified. Index lesions were more likely than non-index lesions to increase in size ≥2 mm (36.2 vs. 7.3 %; p=0.002). Overall progression was more likely to be seen among the index cohort (34.8 vs. 7.6%; p<0.001). New lesions with PI-RADS ≥4 were seen on second imaging in 13 (16.5%) men, and became the index lesion in 29 cases (34.9%). Eighteen men on AS showed evidence of MRI progression (five with new lesions, 13 with progression of a previous lesion). Biopsy reclassification was present in three men (16.7%) with and seven men without MRI progression (19.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall changes in size and PI-RADS scores of index lesions on MRI were small. New lesions were common, but usually did not alter management.
INTRODUCTION: The natural history of prostatic lesions identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is largely unknown. We aimed to describe changes observed over time on serial MRI. METHODS: All patients with ≥2 MRI studies between 2008 and 2015 at our institution were identified. MRI progression was defined as an increase in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS; version 2) or size of existing lesions, or the appearance of a new lesion PIRADS ≥4. Patients on active surveillance (AS) were analyzed for correlation of MRI progression to biopsy reclassification. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients (54 on AS and 29 for diagnostic purposes) underwent serial MRI, with a mean interval of 1.9 years between scans. At baseline, 115 lesions (66 index, 49 non-index) were identified. Index lesions were more likely than non-index lesions to increase in size ≥2 mm (36.2 vs. 7.3 %; p=0.002). Overall progression was more likely to be seen among the index cohort (34.8 vs. 7.6%; p<0.001). New lesions with PI-RADS ≥4 were seen on second imaging in 13 (16.5%) men, and became the index lesion in 29 cases (34.9%). Eighteen men on AS showed evidence of MRI progression (five with new lesions, 13 with progression of a previous lesion). Biopsy reclassification was present in three men (16.7%) with and seven men without MRI progression (19.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall changes in size and PI-RADS scores of index lesions on MRI were small. New lesions were common, but usually did not alter management.
Authors: Osama M Zaytoun; Thomas Anil; Ayman S Moussa; Li Jianbo; Khaled Fareed; J Stephen Jones Journal: Urology Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Annerleim Walton Diaz; Nabeel Ahmad Shakir; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Jason T Rothwax; Lambros Stamatakis; Cheng William Hong; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Daniel Su; Joanna Shih; Hui Han; Howard L Parnes; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Ely R Felker; Jason Wu; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Kevin Michael Gallagher; Edward Christopher; Andrew James Cameron; Scott Little; Alasdair Innes; Gill Davis; Julian Keanie; Prasad Bollina; Alan McNeill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Vasilis Stavrinides; Francesco Giganti; Bruce Trock; Shonit Punwani; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham; Alex Freeman; Aiman Haider; Rhys Ball; Neil McCartan; Hayley Whitaker; Clement Orczyk; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Indrani Bhattacharya; David S Lim; Han Lin Aung; Xingchen Liu; Arun Seetharaman; Christian A Kunder; Wei Shao; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Katherine J To'o; James D Brooks; Geoffrey A Sonn; Mirabela Rusu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.506