Marc A Bjurlin1, Peter R Carroll2, Scott Eggener3, Pat F Fulgham4, Daniel J Margolis5, Peter A Pinto6, Andrew B Rosenkrantz7, Jonathan N Rubenstein8, Daniel B Rukstalis9, Samir S Taneja7, Baris Turkbey6. 1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, Texas. 5. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 6. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 8. Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique 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: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.
PURPOSE: We update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique 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: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
image-guided biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms; risk assessment
Authors: Chinonyerem Okoro; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Nabeel A Shakir; Jason T Rothwax; Dima Raskolnikov; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Maarten de Rooij; Esther H J Hamoen; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Alireza Ziaei; Francesco Alessandrino; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Mukesh Harisinghani; Mark Vangel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-04
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Masoom A Haider; Anwar R Padhani; Geert Villeirs; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Daniel J Margolis; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadhna Verma; Jelle Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Nancy N Wang; James D Brooks; Andreas M Loening; Bruce L Daniel; Katherine J To'o; Alan E Thong; John T Leppert Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-12-07
Authors: Daniel R Henderson; Nandita M de Souza; Karen Thomas; Sophie F Riches; Veronica A Morgan; Syed A Sohaib; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker; Nicholas J van As Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Lars Boesen; Nis Nørgaard; Vibeke Løgager; Ingegerd Balslev; Rasmus Bisbjerg; Karen-Cecilie Thestrup; Mads D Winther; Henrik Jakobsen; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-06-01
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Francesco Giganti; Peter Albertsen; Clare Allen; Chris Bangma; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Masoom Haider; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Laurence Klotz; Adil Ouzzane; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Antti Rannikko; Raphaele Renard-Penna; Karim Touijer; Baris Turkbey; Heinrik van Poppel; Riccardo Valdagni; Jochen Walz; Ivo Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Leonard S Marks; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Richard E Fan; Michael D Gross; Elizabeth Mauer; Samprit Banerjee; Stefanie Hectors; Sigrid Carlsson; Daniel J Margolis; Jim C Hu Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Mansi M Chandra; Seth H Greenspan; Xiaoning Li; Jie Yang; Aurora D Pryor; Annie Laurie Winkley Shroyer; John P Fitzgerald Journal: Am J Clin Exp Urol Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michele Scialpi; Pietro Scialpi; Eugenio Martorana; Riccardo Torre; Antonio Improta; Maria Cristina Aisa; Alfredo D'Andrea; Aldo Di Blasi Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2021-05
Authors: E J Bass; A Pantovic; M Connor; R Gabe; A R Padhani; A Rockall; H Sokhi; H Tam; M Winkler; H U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450