MRI and surveillance

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 231-236

  Ouzzane, Adil ^a   Puech, Philippe ^a   Villers, Arnauld ^a  

^a UNIV LILLE   (France)

Author keywords

biopsy; detection; imaging; MRI; natural history; pathology; prostate neoplasm

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE COST; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84859635954     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dcf7     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60:291-303.
2. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180:1964-1967; discussion 1967-1968.
3. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:126-131. This study is the largest prospective series available in the literature providing level 1 evidence of long-term oncological outcomes of active surveillance in patients with localized prostate cancer.
4. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x The study shows that incorporating MRI data, in addition to clinical and biopsy findings, into nomograms can help for better preoperative risk assessment.
5. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, et al. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009; 182:2274-2278. This is the first study showing radical prostatectomy findings after failure of active surveillance. Large cancers in this study were mainly anteriorly located.
6. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2795-2800.
7. Ayres BE, Montgomery BS, Barber NJ, et al. The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int 2011 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10480.x
8. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. 'Prostatic evasive anterior tumours': the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 2010; 105:1231-1236.
9. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer. Correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2009; 74:1094-1099. Correlation between MRI and whole-mounted pathologic radical prostatectomy sections is necessary to assess MRI findings. A detailed morphometric cancer evaluation according to the Stanford technique with mapping, identification of separate cancers and volume measurement provide quantitative data for imaging correlation.
10. Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:470-480. This study shows the interest of T2 and DCE for the description, localization and volume assessment of anterior prostate cancers in a prospective series of 27 cases with radical prostatectomy and rationally describes four types of anterior tumors.
11. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2006; 176:2432-2437. (Pubitemid 44665992)
12. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2):E171-E178. In this study, targeted biopsies to MRI suspicious areas detected 16% more Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancers and better quantified the burden of cancer than systematic biopsies, with a cancer core length involvement of 5.56 vs. 4.70mm (P=0.0018). These results demonstrate the role of prebiopsy MRI with targeted biopsies.
13. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011; 186:1281-1285.
14. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2011; (in press).
15. Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) anatomy of the prostate and application of MRI in radiotherapy planning. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63:361-368. (Pubitemid 47321042)
16. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:3669-3676.
17. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261:46-66.
18. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197:1382-1390.
19. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194:W316-W322.
20. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, et al. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33:167-172.
21. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 - sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249:900-908.
22. DeSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential noninvasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2008; 63:774-782.
23. Yoshimitsu K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H, et al. Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with stepwise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27:132-139.
24. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259:453-461. This is an interesting study showing the role of diffusion imaging as a predictor of Gleason score and tumor behavior.
25. 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; 56:981-987.
26. Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2010; 256:176-183. The authors of this study show a promising role of MRI for monitoring cancer progression among patients managed with active surveillance.
27. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59:477-494. This article provides recommendations from a consensus meeting of 16 European prostate cancer experts on a standardized method for the conduct, interpretation and reporting of prostate multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection and localization.
28. Crawford ED, Wilson SS, Torkko KC, et al. Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2005; 96:999-1004. (Pubitemid 41531402)
29. Puech P, Huglo D, Petyt G, et al. Imaging of organ-confined prostate cancer: functional ultrasound, MRI and PET/CT. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19:168-176.
30. Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, et al. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology 2011; 78:1356-1362. In this study, 19% of patients with abnormal screening test had anterior prostate cancer and targeted biopsies based on a prebiopsy MRI-detected lesion improved detection rate, volume and grade of anterior cancers compared with currently used 12-core systematic biopsies.
31. Presti JC. Prostate biopsy: current status and limitations. Rev Urol 2007; 9:93-98.
32. Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, et al. Importance of additional 'Extreme'anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2010; 75:1034-1039.
33. Delongchamps NB, Haas GP. Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects. Nat Rev Urol 2009; 6:645-652.
34. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010; 13:71-77.
35. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186:458-464.
36. Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, Parkinson MC. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int 2002; 89:886-889. (Pubitemid 34535421)
37. Rouse P, Shaw G, Ahmed HU, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to rule-in and rule-out clinically important prostate cancer in men at risk: a cohort study. Urol Int 2011; 87:49-53.
38. Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196:586-591.
39. 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; 56:981-987.
40. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 2011; 84:31-37.