Pawel Rajwa1, Benjamin Pradere2, Fahad Quhal3, Keiichiro Mori4, Ekaterina Laukhtina5, Nicolai A Huebner2, David D'Andrea2, Aleksandra Krzywon6, Sung Ryul Shim7, Pascal A Baltzer8, Raphaële Renard-Penna9, Michael S Leapman10, Shahrokh F Shariat11, Guillaume Ploussard12. 1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland. 2. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. 4. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland. 7. Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris-Sorbonne University, Paris, France. 10. Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 11. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 12. Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes. CONCLUSIONS: Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.
CONTEXT: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is broadly implemented into active surveillance (AS) protocols, data on the reliability of serial MRI in order to help guide follow-up biopsy are inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic estimates of serial prostate MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) progression during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to select studies analyzing the association between changes on serial prostate MRI and PCa progression during AS. We included studies that provided data for MRI progression, which allowed us to calculate diagnostic estimates. We compared Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) accuracy with institution-specific definitions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies with 2240 patients. Six used PRECISE criteria and nine institution-specific definitions of MRI progression. The pooled PCa progression rate, which included histological progression to Gleason grade ≥2, was 27%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.73) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between included studies. Depending on PCa progression prevalence, the pooled negative predictive value for serial prostate MRI ranged from 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.88) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) and the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 0.37 (95% CI 0.24-0.54) to 0.50 (95% CI 0.36-0.66). There were no significant differences in the pooled sensitivity (p = 0.37) and specificity (p = 0.74) of PRECISE and institution-specific schemes. CONCLUSIONS: Serial MRI still should not be considered a sole factor for excluding PCa progression during AS, and changes on MRI are not accurate enough to indicate PCa progression. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved diagnostic estimates of PRECISE recommendations. These findings highlight the need to further define the optimal triggers and timing of biopsy during AS, as well as the need for optimizing the quality, interpretation, and reporting of serial prostate MRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study suggests that serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in patients on active surveillance is not accurate enough to reliably rule out or rule in prostate cancer progression. Other clinical factors and biomarkers along with serial MRI are required to safely tailor the intensity of follow-up biopsies.
Authors: Analena Elisa Handke; Markus Graefen; Tim Ullrich; Andreas Wibmer; Boris Alexander Hadaschik; Francesco Giganti; Lars Schimmöller; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Urologe A Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 0.639
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