Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1037-1045

  Mullins, Jeffrey K ^a   Bonekamp, David ^a   Landis, Patricia ^a   Begum, Hosne ^a   Partin, Alan W ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^a   MacUra, Katarzyna J ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; sensitivity and specificity; surveillance

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGED; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DOSE RESPONSE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOW RISK POPULATION; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PATIENT MONITORING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84877722087     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR,. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170 (6 Pt 2): S21-25
2. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 591-595
3. 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
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. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810-2816
6. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM,. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-1834
7. Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP,. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2009; 182: 2664-2669
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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: 368-374
11. Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 1387-1394
12. Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1998; 206: 785-790
13. Tseng KS, Landis P, Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Carter HB,. Repeat prostate biopsies predict location of index cancer in an active surveillance cohort. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1415-1420
14. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP,. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71 (3 Suppl.): 933-938
15. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239: 784-792
16. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 323-328
17. 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
18. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012; 16: 902-909
19. 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
20. 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
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