Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme

BJU International

Volumn 108, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 513-517

  Ploussard, Guillaume ^a   Xylinas, Evanguelos ^a   Durand, Xavier ^a   Ouzaïd, Idir ^a   Allory, Yves ^a   Bouanane, Mohamed ^a   Abbou, Claude Clément ^a   Salomon, Laurent ^a   De La Taille, Alexandre ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

active surveillance; biopsy scheme; low risk; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CODING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY;

AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 79959565745     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al,. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1321-30
2. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al,. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68-80 (Pubitemid 350166735)
3. van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al,. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1-8
4. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74 (Pubitemid 24037911)
5. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al,. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003; 170: 1792-7 (Pubitemid 37254930)
6. Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A, et al,. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110: 2441-7 (Pubitemid 350174929)
7. Ochiai A, Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Donnelly B, Babaian RJ,. Validation of a prediction model for low volume/low grade cancer: application in selecting patients for active surveillance. J Urol 2007; 177: 907-10 (Pubitemid 46216359)
8. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al,. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113: 2068-72
9. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, et al,. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 2008; 113: 701-9
10. Conti SL, Dall'era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR,. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1628-33
11. Mottet N, Irani J,. Active surveillance in prostate cancer: the French protocol. Prog Urol 2008; 18: F12-6
12. Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Jones JS,. Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology 2008; 71: 573-7 (Pubitemid 351442978)
13. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD,. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180: 1964-7
14. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, et al,. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance-does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 2010; 183: 539-44
15. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L, et al,. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 891-8
16. Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P,. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 274-82
17. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al,. 'Prostatic evasive anterior tumours': the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1231-6
18. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al,. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-70 (Pubitemid 351969209)
19. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Postma R, et al,. Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 475-82 (Pubitemid 44189069)
20. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al,. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1297-305
21. Patel AR, Jones JS,. Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 232-7
22. Cheng L, Poulos CK, Pan CX, et al,. Preoperative prediction of small volume cancer (less than 0.5 ml) in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005; 174: 898-902 (Pubitemid 41140625)
23. Greene KL, Elkin EP, Karapetian A, Duchane J, Carroll PR, Kane CJ, CaPSURE Investigators. Prostate biopsy tumor extent but not location predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2006; 175: 125-9 (Pubitemid 41797108)
24. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et al,. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73: 1087-91
25. Turley RS, Terris MK, Kane CJ, et al,. SEARCH Database Study Group. The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. BJU Int 2008; 102: 1074-9
26. Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG,. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4321-6
27. Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al,. Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 2008; 247: 444-50
28. Kajihara H, Hayashida Y, Murakami R, et al,. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the localization of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 399-403
29. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et al,. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 774-82
30. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al,. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 981-8
31. Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, et al,. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 575-90