Literature DB >> 32716685

PI-RADS® Category as a Predictor of Progression to Unfavorable Risk Prostate Cancer in Men on Active Surveillance.

Alex Z Wang1, Luke P O’Conno1, Nitin K Yerram1, Lori Long2, Johnathan Zeng3, Sherif Mehralivand4, Stephanie A Harmon5, Amir H Lebastchi1, Michael Ahdoot1, Patrick T Gomella1, Sandeep Gurram1, Peter L Choyke4, Maria J Merino6, Joanna H Shih2, Bradford J Wood3, Baris Turkbey4, Peter A Pinto1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We identified baseline imaging and clinical characteristics of patients that may improve risk stratification among patients being evaluated for active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2007 to January 2020 patients referred to our institution for prostate cancer were evaluated and those who remained on active surveillance were identified. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging upon entry into our active surveillance protocol during which baseline demographic and imaging data were documented. Patients were then followed and outcomes, specifically progression to Gleason Grade Group (GG)3 or greater disease, were recorded.
RESULTS: Of the men placed on active surveillance 344 had at least 1 PI-RADS score documented. For those with an index lesion PI-RADS category of 5, 33% (17/51) had progression to GG3 or greater on active surveillance with a median time to progression of 31 months. When comparing the progression-free survival times and progression rates in each category, PI-RADS category was found to be associated with progression to GG3 or greater on active surveillance (p <0.01). On univariable analysis factors associated with progression included an index lesion PI-RADS category of 5, prostate specific antigen density and the size of the largest lesion. On multivariable analysis only PI-RADS category of 5 and prostate specific antigen density were associated with progression on active surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS lesion categories at baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance enrollment can be used to predict cancer progression to GG3 or greater on active surveillance. This information, along with other clinical data, can better assist urologists in identifying and managing patients appropriate for active surveillance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32716685      PMCID: PMC8919058          DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  33 in total

1.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score.

Authors:  Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Michele Scialpi; Salvatore Micali; Andrea Iseppi; Luca Reggiani Bonetti; Shaniko Kaleci; Pietro Torricelli; Giampaolo Bianchi
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer.

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

4.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter C Albertsen; James A Hanley; Judith Fine
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance after Initial Surveillance Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Evan Kovac; Gregory Lieser; Ahmed Elshafei; J Stephen Jones; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Brian P Calio; Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification?

Authors:  Richard J Bryant; Bob Yang; Yiannis Philippou; Karla Lam; Maureen Obiakor; Jennifer Ayers; Virginia Chiocchia; Fergus Gleeson; Ruth MacPherson; Clare Verrill; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Freddie C Hamdy; Simon F Brewster
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Risk of Metastasis in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Long-Term Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Experience.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Anna Kettermann; Christopher Warlick; E Jeffrey Metter; Patricia Landis; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Olivier Rouvière; Morgan Rouprêt; Roderick van den Bergh; Raphaële Renard-Penna
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 16.430

Review 2.  PI-RADSv2.1: Current status.

Authors:  Stephanie M Walker; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.