Amer Amin1,2,3,4, Matthijs J Scheltema3,4,5, Ron Shnier6, Alexandar Blazevski1,2,3,4, Daniel Moses2, Thomas Cusick1,3,4, Amila Siriwardena1,3,4, Brian Yuen1,3,4, Pim J van Leeuwen3,4,7, Anne Maree Haynes3,4, Jayne Matthews1, Phillip Brenner1, Gordon O'Neill8, Carlo Yuen2,3,4,8, Warick Delprado9, Phillip Stricker1,2,3,4, James Thompson1,2,3,4. 1. St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. I-MED Radiology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Nederlands Kanker Instituut, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. St Vincent's Clinic, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 9. Douglas Hanly Moir Pathology, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prospective studies are lacking in assessing the diagnostic utility of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict biopsy proven progression to clinically significant prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, as well as the oncologic safety of baseline magnetic resonance imaging and saturation diagnostic biopsy in replacing early confirmatory biopsy during active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 men were enrolled in this single arm prospective trial. Men with cT2 or lower histologically proven prostate cancer (Gleason 3+3=6 or Gleason 3+4=7 with 10% or less Gleason pattern 4 overall and less than 2 cores Gleason pattern 4) eligible for surveillance were included in the study. Men underwent baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy followed by serial annual multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging until a 3-year end point per protocol saturation biopsy. The standardized 1-year confirmatory biopsy was omitted and biopsies during the protocol were triggered based on new abnormalities on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: We report the prespecified interim analysis of the first 100 men at 3 years. At baseline the median age was 64.5 (IQR 57.25-69) years, prostate specific antigen was 4.7 ng/ml (IQR 3.4-6.6), 91% had Gleason 3+3=6 prostate cancer and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was negative (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 1/2/3) in 88% of men. Within 3 years 21% experienced pathological progression. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by surveillance multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 45%, 89%, 61% and 80%, respectively. Positive surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (p=0.002) and prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.2 ng/ml (p=0.042) had significant predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel active surveillance protocol incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging detected most cases of disease progression and may enable confirmatory biopsy to be deferred, but should not replace 3-year surveillance biopsy altogether due to occasional magnetic resonance imaging invisible tumors.
PURPOSE: Prospective studies are lacking in assessing the diagnostic utility of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict biopsy proven progression to clinically significant prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, as well as the oncologic safety of baseline magnetic resonance imaging and saturation diagnostic biopsy in replacing early confirmatory biopsy during active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 men were enrolled in this single arm prospective trial. Men with cT2 or lower histologically proven prostate cancer (Gleason 3+3=6 or Gleason 3+4=7 with 10% or less Gleason pattern 4 overall and less than 2 cores Gleason pattern 4) eligible for surveillance were included in the study. Men underwent baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy followed by serial annual multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging until a 3-year end point per protocol saturation biopsy. The standardized 1-year confirmatory biopsy was omitted and biopsies during the protocol were triggered based on new abnormalities on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: We report the prespecified interim analysis of the first 100 men at 3 years. At baseline the median age was 64.5 (IQR 57.25-69) years, prostate specific antigen was 4.7 ng/ml (IQR 3.4-6.6), 91% had Gleason 3+3=6 prostate cancer and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was negative (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 1/2/3) in 88% of men. Within 3 years 21% experienced pathological progression. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by surveillance multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 45%, 89%, 61% and 80%, respectively. Positive surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (p=0.002) and prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.2 ng/ml (p=0.042) had significant predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel active surveillance protocol incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging detected most cases of disease progression and may enable confirmatory biopsy to be deferred, but should not replace 3-year surveillance biopsy altogether due to occasional magnetic resonance imaging invisible tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting
Authors: Rocco S Flammia; Benedikt Hoeh; Lukas Hohenhorst; Gabriele Sorce; Francesco Chierigo; Andrea Panunzio; Zhe Tian; Fred Saad; Costantino Leonardo; Alberto Briganti; Alessandro Antonelli; Carlo Terrone; Shahrokh F Shariat; Umberto Anceschi; Markus Graefen; Felix K H Chun; Francesco Montorsi; Michele Gallucci; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: William John Yaxley; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Sheliyan Raveenthiran; Anthony Franklin; Peter Donato; Geoff Coughlin; Boon Kua; Troy Gianduzzo; David Wong; Robert Parkinson; Nicholas Brown; Hemamali Samaratunga; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Matthew Roberts; John William Yaxley Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Lars Björnebo; Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Henrik Olsson; Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Lars Egevad; Hari T Vigneswaran; Magnus Annerstedt; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Anna Lantz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506