Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 110, Issue 11 B, 2012, Pages

  Yerram, Nitin K ^a   Volkin, Dmitry ^a   Turkbey, Baris ^a   Nix, Jeffrey ^a   Hoang, Anthony N ^a   Vourganti, Srinivas ^a   Gupta, Gopal N ^a   Linehan, W Marston ^a   Choyke, Peter L ^a   Wood, Bradford J ^b   Pinto, Peter A ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Center for Interventional Oncology   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Low suspicion lesion; Prostate MRI

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876436929     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11646.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 277-300
2. 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: 1818-24
3. 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: 1281-5
4. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Chung PH et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011; 185: 815-20
5. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C 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: 177-84
6. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239: 784-92
7. Xu S, Kruecker J, Guion P et al. Closed-loop control in fused MR-TRUS image-guided prostate biopsy. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2007; 10: 128-35
8. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 2008; 13: 255-64
9. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M et al. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009; 6: 197-206
10. Albertsen P. Further support for active surveillance in the management of low-volume, low-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 836-7
11. Jacobson DJ, St Sauver JL, Parker AS et al. Estimation of prostate size in community-dwelling men. Urology 2011; 77: 422-6
12. D'Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH. Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2163-72
13. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 29: 228-34
14. May M, Knoll N, Siegsmund M et al. Validity of the CAPRA score to predict biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Results from a european multicenter survey of 1,296 patients. J Urol 2007; 178: 1957-62
15. Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Pasta DJ et al. Multiinstitutional validation of the UCSF cancer of the prostate risk assessment for prediction of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2006; 107: 2384-91
16. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 173: 1938-42
17. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB et al. Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 2007; 178: 1925 - 8
18. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559-62
19. 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: 301-5
20. Choi WW, Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1645-9
21. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258: 488-95
22. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57