The role of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 261-267

  Moore, Caroline M ^a   Ridout, Ashley ^a   Emberton, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

active surveillance; MRI; MRI targeted biopsy; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; VISUAL INFORMATION;

BIOPSY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SOFTWARE; TIME FACTORS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84876411663     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f899f     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Kirkham APS, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50:1163-1174; discussion 1175.
2. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L, et al. Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer - a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79:189-195.
3. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005; 234:804-814. (Pubitemid 40250824)
4. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C. What is the optimal b value in diffusionweighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol 2012; 22:703-709.
5. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S, et al. Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012; 2012 [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1155/2012/374805.
6. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196:374-381.
7. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, de Kaa CH-V, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61:177-184.
8. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (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.
9. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011; 186:1818-1824.
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.
11. Lawrentschuk N, HaiderMA, Daljeet N, et al. 'Prostatic evasive anterior tumours': the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 2010; 105:1231-1236.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, et al. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188:762-768.
15. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, et al. Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
16. 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.
17. Watanabe Y, Terai A, Araki T, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer with the targeted biopsy strategy based on ADC map: a prospective large-scale cohort study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35:1414-1421.
18. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image-targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 189:860-866.
19. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating preinterventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011; 186:2214-2220.
20. Delongchamps NB, Zerbib M. Re: role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol 2012; 61:622-623.
21. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJA, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 2011; 29:334-342.
22. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013; 189:86-91.
23. Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A, et al. Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 2011; 86:373-382.
24. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63:125-140.
25. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188:1732-1738.
26. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012; 187:1247-1252.
27. 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.
28. Stevens DJ, Moore C, Ahmed H, et al. 1096 the natural history of untreated prostate MRI lesions in an active surveillance prostate cancer population: 260 patient-years. Eur Urol Suppl 2012; 11:e1096-e1196.
29. Robertson NL, Moore CM, Ambler G, et al. MAPPED study design: a 6 month randomised controlled study to evaluate the effect of dutasteride on prostate cancer volume using magnetic resonance imaging. Contemp Clin Trials 2012; 34:80-89.