PURPOSE: We investigated the ability of prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer in a standardized, multi-institutional active surveillance cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated men enrolled in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Gleason Grade Group less than 2 and who underwent biopsy within 12 months of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Our primary outcome was biopsy reclassification to Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS® score and clinical factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit with magnetic resonance imaging and clinical factors and used to perform receiver operating curve analyses. RESULTS: There were 361 participants with 395 prostate magnetic resonance imaging studies with a median followup of 4.1 (IQR 2.0-7.6) years. Overall 108 (27%) biopsies showed reclassification. Defining positive magnetic resonance imaging as PI-RADS 3-5, the negative predictive value and positive predictive value for detecting Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer was 83% (95% CI 76-90) and 31% (95% CI 26-37), respectively. PI-RADS was significantly associated with reclassification (PI-RADS 5 vs 1 and 2 OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.21-6.17, p=0.016) in a multivariable model but did not improve upon a model with only clinical factors (AUC 0.768 vs 0.762). In 194 fusion biopsies higher grade cancer was found in targeted cores in 21 (11%) instances, while 25 (13%) had higher grade cancer in the systematic cores. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds the largest cohort data to the body of literature for magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance, recommending systematic biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and the inclusion of systematic biopsy in patients with positive magnetic resonance imaging.
PURPOSE: We investigated the ability of prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer in a standardized, multi-institutional active surveillance cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated men enrolled in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Gleason Grade Group less than 2 and who underwent biopsy within 12 months of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Our primary outcome was biopsy reclassification to Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS® score and clinical factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit with magnetic resonance imaging and clinical factors and used to perform receiver operating curve analyses. RESULTS: There were 361 participants with 395 prostate magnetic resonance imaging studies with a median followup of 4.1 (IQR 2.0-7.6) years. Overall 108 (27%) biopsies showed reclassification. Defining positive magnetic resonance imaging as PI-RADS 3-5, the negative predictive value and positive predictive value for detecting Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer was 83% (95% CI 76-90) and 31% (95% CI 26-37), respectively. PI-RADS was significantly associated with reclassification (PI-RADS 5 vs 1 and 2 OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.21-6.17, p=0.016) in a multivariable model but did not improve upon a model with only clinical factors (AUC 0.768 vs 0.762). In 194 fusion biopsies higher grade cancer was found in targeted cores in 21 (11%) instances, while 25 (13%) had higher grade cancer in the systematic cores. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds the largest cohort data to the body of literature for magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance, recommending systematic biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and the inclusion of systematic biopsy in patients with positive magnetic resonance imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: Ting Martin Ma; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Edward M Schaeffer; Patricia Landis; Sacha Wolf; Katarzyna J Macura; Jonathan I Epstein; Mufaddal Mamawala; H Ballentine Carter Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Geraldine N Tran; Michael S Leapman; Hao G Nguyen; Janet E Cowan; Katsuto Shinohara; Antonio C Westphalen; Peter R Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James L Mohler; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Andrew J Armstrong; Anthony V D'Amico; Brian J Davis; Tanya Dorff; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Michael Hurwitz; Joseph E Ippolito; Christopher J Kane; Michael R Kuettel; Joshua M Lang; Jesse McKenney; George Netto; David F Penson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Thomas J Pugh; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Ahmad Shabsigh; Eric J Small; Daniel E Spratt; Sandy Srinivas; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jim C Hu; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Geoffrey Sonn; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Marshall D Brown; Daniel D Sjoberg; Yan Dong; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Michael Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Yingye Zheng Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-11-23 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: Benjamin H Press; Tashzna Jones; Olamide Olawoyin; Soum D Lokeshwar; Syed N Rahman; Ghazal Khajir; Daniel W Lin; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stacy Loeb; Burcu F Darst; Yingye Zheng; Ronald C Chen; John S Witte; Tyler M Seibert; William J Catalona; Michael S Leapman; Preston C Sprenkle Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-02-11
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Josip Nincevic; Ines Nikolovski; Evis Sala; Mithat Gonen; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael J Zelefsky; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 7.450
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