Danly Omil-Lima1, Albert Kim2, Ilon Weinstein3, Karishma Gupta1, David Sheyn1, Lee Ponsky1,4. 1. Urology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States. 2. Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States. 3. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States. 4. Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limited data guide urological practice when employing prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in active surveillance (AS) protocols. To determine the ability of prostate MRI to predict pathological progression in AS patients, we correlated findings of serial MRI with results of surveillance biopsies. METHODS: Patients on AS with ≥2 prostate MRI and ≥2 prostate biopsies were included. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score upgrade, as assigned by experienced radiologists, was used to assess the ability of imaging to predict pathological biopsy progression. Imaging test statistics and the odds ratio of pathological progression according to MRI upgrade were calculated. RESULTS: Of 121 patients meeting criteria, 36 (30%) demonstrated MRI upgrade. Biopsy progression was noted in 55 patients (46%). Of these, 20 patients (37%) had biopsy progression predicted by MRI upgrade, while the remaining (n=35) had no lesion upgrade on prostate MRI. Conversely, among those with no biopsy progression (n=66), 16 patients (24%) had a false-positive upgrade on serial MRI. We report a sensitivity and specificity of MRI change for pathological progression of 36% and 76%, respectively. Although MRI change was associated with a positive predictive value of 56% for pathological progression, patients with a high-suspicion lesion (PI-RADS >3) at any time were more likely to experience disease progression, (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.6-8.0, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Given its modest sensitivity/specificity, serial prostate MRI should be used judiciously as a surveillance tool. However, when prostate MRI demonstrates a PI-RADS >3 lesion, a high index of suspicion should be maintained, as these patients are more likely to progress on AS.
INTRODUCTION: Limited data guide urological practice when employing prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in active surveillance (AS) protocols. To determine the ability of prostate MRI to predict pathological progression in AS patients, we correlated findings of serial MRI with results of surveillance biopsies. METHODS: Patients on AS with ≥2 prostate MRI and ≥2 prostate biopsies were included. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score upgrade, as assigned by experienced radiologists, was used to assess the ability of imaging to predict pathological biopsy progression. Imaging test statistics and the odds ratio of pathological progression according to MRI upgrade were calculated. RESULTS: Of 121 patients meeting criteria, 36 (30%) demonstrated MRI upgrade. Biopsy progression was noted in 55 patients (46%). Of these, 20 patients (37%) had biopsy progression predicted by MRI upgrade, while the remaining (n=35) had no lesion upgrade on prostate MRI. Conversely, among those with no biopsy progression (n=66), 16 patients (24%) had a false-positive upgrade on serial MRI. We report a sensitivity and specificity of MRI change for pathological progression of 36% and 76%, respectively. Although MRI change was associated with a positive predictive value of 56% for pathological progression, patients with a high-suspicion lesion (PI-RADS >3) at any time were more likely to experience disease progression, (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.6-8.0, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Given its modest sensitivity/specificity, serial prostate MRI should be used judiciously as a surveillance tool. However, when prostate MRI demonstrates a PI-RADS >3 lesion, a high index of suspicion should be maintained, as these patients are more likely to progress on AS.
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pat F Fulgham; Daniel B Rukstalis; Ismail Baris Turkbey; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Samir Taneja; Peter R Carroll; Peter A Pinto; Marc A Bjurlin; Scott Eggener Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael A Liss; Behfar Ehdaie; Stacy Loeb; Maxwell V Meng; Jay D Raman; Vanessa Spears; Sean P Stroup Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul C Moldovan; Thomas Van den Broeck; Richard Sylvester; Lorenzo Marconi; Joaquim Bellmunt; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Theo H van der Kwast; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Maria De Santis; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Philip Cornford; Nicolas Mottet; Thomas B Lam; Olivier Rouvière Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Juho T Eineluoto; Petrus Järvinen; Anu Kenttämies; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Hanna Vasarainen; Kevin Sandeman; Andrew Erickson; Tuomas Mirtti; Antti Rannikko Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Julie Y An; Abhinav Sidana; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A Pinto; İsmail Barış Türkbey Journal: Balkan Med J Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 2.021
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Francesco Giganti; Peter Albertsen; Clare Allen; Chris Bangma; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Masoom Haider; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Laurence Klotz; Adil Ouzzane; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Antti Rannikko; Raphaele Renard-Penna; Karim Touijer; Baris Turkbey; Heinrik van Poppel; Riccardo Valdagni; Jochen Walz; Ivo Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096