Parth Patel1, Shu Wang1, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, 29 S Greene St Suite 500, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, 29 S Greene St Suite 500, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. msiddiqui@som.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the long-standing controversy surrounding the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of prostate cancer, there is a need for a minimally invasive technique to identify and risk-stratify these patients. Additionally, in an effort to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), there has been a shift in practice towards the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in conjunction with decision-making regarding prostate cancer diagnosis and management. In the current review, we summarize the data regarding the use of mpMRI in the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of csPCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent prospective clinical trials have determined that a pre-biopsy mpMRI may rule out insignificant prostate cancers, thereby reducing the number of patients who require a biopsy. The anatomic information gathered from these pre-biopsy mpMRI performed during MRI fusion biopsy in csPCa increases the accuracy of pathologic staging in terms of Gleason scores. In regard to active surveillance, prospective trials suggest little to no clinical utility for mpMRI and fusion biopsy in the surveillance of prostate cancer despite conflicting findings from retrospective studies. Recent trials suggest that mpMRI can play an important role in the detection and evaluation of csPCa. The ideal role for mpMRI in active surveillance remains limited.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the long-standing controversy surrounding the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of prostate cancer, there is a need for a minimally invasive technique to identify and risk-stratify these patients. Additionally, in an effort to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), there has been a shift in practice towards the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in conjunction with decision-making regarding prostate cancer diagnosis and management. In the current review, we summarize the data regarding the use of mpMRI in the detection, evaluation, and surveillance of csPCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent prospective clinical trials have determined that a pre-biopsy mpMRI may rule out insignificant prostate cancers, thereby reducing the number of patients who require a biopsy. The anatomic information gathered from these pre-biopsy mpMRI performed during MRI fusion biopsy in csPCa increases the accuracy of pathologic staging in terms of Gleason scores. In regard to active surveillance, prospective trials suggest little to no clinical utility for mpMRI and fusion biopsy in the surveillance of prostate cancer despite conflicting findings from retrospective studies. Recent trials suggest that mpMRI can play an important role in the detection and evaluation of csPCa. The ideal role for mpMRI in active surveillance remains limited.
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Caroline Hoeks; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Tom Scheenen; Jurgen Fütterer; Stefan Bouwense; Inge van Oort; Fritz Schröder; Henkjan Huisman; Jelle Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anna Grenabo Bergdahl; Ulrica Wilderäng; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Jan-Erik Damber; Maria Frånlund; Kjell Geterud; Ali Khatami; Andreas Socratous; Johan Stranne; Mikael Hellström; Jonas Hugosson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lambros Stamatakis; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jeffrey W Nix; Jennifer Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Brian Shuch; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Richard M Simon; Peter A Pinto Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael S Cohen; Robert S Hanley; Teodora Kurteva; Robin Ruthazer; Mark L Silverman; Andrea Sorcini; Karim Hamawy; Robert A Roth; Ingolf Tuerk; John A Libertino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096
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: M Abd-Alazeez; A Kirkham; H U Ahmed; M Arya; E Anastasiadis; S C Charman; A Freeman; M Emberton Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.554