Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 152-157

  Somford, Diederik M ^a,b   Hoeks, Caroline M ^b   Hulsbergen Van De Kaa, Christina A ^b   Hambrock, Thomas ^b   Fütterer, Jurgen J ^b   Witjes, J Alfred ^b   Bangma, Chris H ^c   Vergunst, Henk ^a   Smits, Geert A ^d   Oddens, Jorg R ^e   Van Oort, Inge M ^b   Barentsz, Jelle O ^b  

^a CANISIUS WILHELMINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d RIJNSTATE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^e JEROEN BOSCH HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

active surveillance; apparent diffusion coefficient; diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; TUMOR BIOPSY;

EID: 84873407417     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827b711e     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Postma R, Schroder FH, van Leenders GJ, et al. Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)-Section Rotterdam: a comparison of two rounds ofscreening. Eur Urol. 2007;52:89-97.
2. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3669-3676.
3. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results oflong-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126-131.
4. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29: 2185-2190.
5. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre "Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance"study. BJUInt. 2010;105:956-962.
6. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the man-agement ofprostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112: 2664-2670.
7. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance mini-mizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol. 2010;58:831-835.
8. 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.
9. Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ, et al. Thirty-two-channel coil 3T mag-netic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:686-694.
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746-757.
11. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am JSurg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242.
12. Martin RM, Gunnell D, Hamdy F, et al. Continuing controversy over moni-toring men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of programs in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2006;176:439-449.
13. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179:1335-1338.
14. Narain V, Bianco FJ Jr, Grignon DJ, et al. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate. 2001;49:185-190.
15. Griffin CR, Yu X, Loeb S, et al. Pathological features after radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. J Urol. 2007;178(pt 1):860-863.
16. Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, et al. Final outcomes ofpatients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJUInt. 2009;104:1501-1504.
17. Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer. 2012;118:973-980.
18. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low riskprostate cancer. J Urol. 2009;181:1635-1641.
19. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, et al. Pathological upgrading and upstaging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveil-lance. JUrol. 2008;180:1964-1967.
20. King AC, Livermore A, Laurila TA, et al. Impact ofimmediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2011. [Epub ahead ofprint].
21. Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, et al. Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2012;30:301-305.
22. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am JRoent-genol. 2007;189:323-328.
23. de Souza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic reso-nance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker oftumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:774-782.
24. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in pe-ripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:720-726.
25. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of pe-ripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coeffi-cient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:W316-W322.
26. 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.
27. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR im-aging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggres-siveness. Radiology. 2011;259:775-784.
28. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, et al. Assessment ofaggressiveness ofprostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:374-381.
29. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR im-aging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score >3 + 3=6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:153-158.
30. Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, et al. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22: 468-475.
31. 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. AJRAm J Roentgenol. 2011;196:586-591.
32. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de KC, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic reso-nance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultra-sound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012;61:177-184.
33. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors ofunfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance pro-gram. Eur Urol. 2012;61:370-377.