BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) protocols rely on rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, imaging, and biopsy to identify disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an AS regimen based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical stage changes can detect reclassification to grade group (GG) ≥2 disease compared with scheduled systematic biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified a cohort of men initiated on AS between January 2013 and April 2016 at a single tertiary-care center. Patients completed confirmatory testing and prostate MRI prior to enrollment, then underwent laboratory and physical evaluation every 6 mo, MRI every 18 mo, and biopsy every 3yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: MRI results were evaluated using composite Likert/Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 scoring. MRI and clinical changes were assessed for association with disease progression. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to predict upgrading on 3-yr biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 3yr, of 207 men, 66 (32%) had≥GG2 at biopsy: 55 (83%) with GG2, 10 (15%) with GG3, and one (1.5%) with GG4. Among patients with a 3-yr MRI score of ≥3, 41% had≥GG2 disease, compared with 15% with an MRI score of <3 (p=0.0002). The MRI score increased in 48 men (23%), decreased in 27 (13%), and was unchanged in 132 (64%) men. Increases in MRI score were not associated with reclassification after adjusting for the 3-yr MRI score (p=0.9). Biopsying only for an increased MRI score or clinical stage would avoid 681 biopsies per 1000 men, at the cost of missing ≥GG2 disease in 169 patients. CONCLUSIONS: An AS strategy that uses MRI or clinical changes to trigger prostate biopsy avoids many biopsies but misses an unacceptable amount of clinically significant disease. Prostate biopsy for men on AS should be performed at scheduled intervals, regardless of stable imaging or examination findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: An active surveillance strategy for biopsy based only on increases in magnetic resonance imaging score or clinical stage will avoid many biopsies; however, it will miss many patients with clinically significant prostate cancer. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) protocols rely on rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, imaging, and biopsy to identify disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an AS regimen based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical stage changes can detect reclassification to grade group (GG) ≥2 disease compared with scheduled systematic biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified a cohort of men initiated on AS between January 2013 and April 2016 at a single tertiary-care center. Patients completed confirmatory testing and prostate MRI prior to enrollment, then underwent laboratory and physical evaluation every 6 mo, MRI every 18 mo, and biopsy every 3yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: MRI results were evaluated using composite Likert/Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 scoring. MRI and clinical changes were assessed for association with disease progression. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to predict upgrading on 3-yr biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 3yr, of 207 men, 66 (32%) had≥GG2 at biopsy: 55 (83%) with GG2, 10 (15%) with GG3, and one (1.5%) with GG4. Among patients with a 3-yr MRI score of ≥3, 41% had≥GG2 disease, compared with 15% with an MRI score of <3 (p=0.0002). The MRI score increased in 48 men (23%), decreased in 27 (13%), and was unchanged in 132 (64%) men. Increases in MRI score were not associated with reclassification after adjusting for the 3-yr MRI score (p=0.9). Biopsying only for an increased MRI score or clinical stage would avoid 681 biopsies per 1000 men, at the cost of missing ≥GG2 disease in 169 patients. CONCLUSIONS: An AS strategy that uses MRI or clinical changes to trigger prostate biopsy avoids many biopsies but misses an unacceptable amount of clinically significant disease. Prostate biopsy for men on AS should be performed at scheduled intervals, regardless of stable imaging or examination findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: An active surveillance strategy for biopsy based only on increases in magnetic resonance imaging score or clinical stage will avoid many biopsies; however, it will miss many patients with clinically significant prostate cancer. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Progression; Prostate cancer; Prostate imaging
Authors: Paul R Womble; James E Montie; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; Brian R Lane; David C Miller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mina M Fam; Jonathan G Yabes; Liam C Macleod; Jathin Bandari; Robert M Turner; Samia H Lopa; Alessandro Furlan; Christopher P Filson; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 2.649
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: David Margel; Stanley A Yap; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Laurence Klotz; Masoom Haider; Karen Hersey; Antonio Finelli; Alexandre Zlotta; John Trachtenberg; Neil Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Caroline M Moore; Shonit Punwani; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Alex Kirkham Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: James L Mohler; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Anthony Victor D'Amico; Brian J Davis; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric M Horwitz; Michael Hurwitz; Christopher J Kane; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Richard J Lee; Joshua J Meeks; David F Penson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; David Raben; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Ted A Skolarus; Eric J Small; Guru Sonpavde; Sandy Srinivas; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Nicola Fossati; James W F Catto; Philip Cornford; Francesco Montorsi; Nicolas Mottet; Manfred Wirth; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-10-21
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: 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
Authors: Bas Israël; Jos Immerzeel; Marloes van der Leest; Gerjon Hannink; Patrik Zámecnik; Joyce Bomers; Ivo G Schoots; Jean-Paul van Basten; Frans Debruyne; Inge van Oort; Michiel Sedelaar; Jelle Barentsz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 5.969