The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer

Urology

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 369-375

  Chamie, Karim ^a   Sonn, Geoffrey A ^a   Finley, David S ^b   Tan, Nelly ^a   Margolis, Daniel J A ^a   Raman, Steven S ^a   Natarajan, Shyam ^a   Huang, Jiaoti ^a   Reiter, Robert E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; EPSTEIN CRITERIA; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR BIOPSY;

AGED; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84893204691     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.045     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. M.R. Cooperberg, J.M. Broering, and P.R. Carroll Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 1117 1123
2. J.I. Epstein, Z. Feng, and B.J. Trock et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades Eur Urol 61 2012 1019 1024
3. M. Mullerad, H. Hricak, and K. Kuroiwa et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer J Urol 174 2005 2158 2163
4. P. Gibbs, D.J. Tozer, and G.P. Liney et al. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate Magn Reson Med 46 2001 1054 1058
5. R. Nagarajan, D. Margolis, and S. Raman et al. Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer Adv Urol 2012 2012 374805
6. B. Turkbey, H. Mani, and V. Shah 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 186 2011 1818 1824
7. P.A. Pinto, P.H. Chung, and A.R. Rastinehad 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 186 2011 1281 1285
8. J.I. Epstein, P.C. Walsh, and M. Carmichael et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer JAMA: J Am Med Assoc 271 1994 368 374
9. T.A. Stamey, F.S. Freiha, and J.E. McNeal et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer Cancer 71 1993 933 938
10. T. Wolters, M.J. Roobol, and P.J. van Leeuwen et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial J Urol 185 2011 121 125
11. B.K. Park, H.M. Lee, and C.K. Kim et al. Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy Invest Radiol 43 2008 789 793
12. D.M. Somford, T. Hambrock, and C.A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score
13. B. Turkbey, H. Mani, and O. Aras et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268 2013 144 152
14. H.B. Carter, A. Kettermann, and C. Warlick et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Urol 178 2007 2359 2364 discussion 2364-5
15. A. Khatami, G. Aus, and J.E. Damber et al. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section Int J Cancer 120 2007 170 174
16. S. Roemeling, M.J. Roobol, and S.H. de Vries et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome Eur Urol 51 2007 1244 1250 discussion 1251
17. N.J. van As, and C.C. Parker Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer Cancer J 13 2007 289 294
18. M.A. Dall'Era, B.R. Konety, and J.E. Cowan et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort Cancer 112 2008 2664 2670
19. M.S. Soloway, C.T. Soloway, and S. Williams et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience BJU Int 101 2008 165 169
20. R.C. van den Bergh, S. Roemeling, and M.J. Roobol et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly Eur Urol 55 2009 1 8
21. L. Klotz, L. Zhang, and A. Lam et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 126 131
22. M.R. Cooperberg, J.M. Broering, and P.W. Kantoff et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment J Urol 178 2007 S14 S19
23. S.B. Williams, A.V. D'Amico, and A.C. Weinberg et al. Population-based determinants of radical prostatectomy surgical margin positivity BJU Int 107 2011 1734 1740
24. M.K. Ivancevik, C.R. Meyer, and C.J. Galban et al. Simple, universal phantom for multi-center apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med 7 2009 4166
25. J.B. Shah, J.M. McKiernan, and E.P. Elkin et al. Prostate biopsy patterns in the CaPSURE database: evolution with time and impact on outcome after prostatectomy J Urol 179 2008 136 140
26. M. Cooperberg, J. Simko, and S. Falzarano et al. Development and Validation of the Biopsy-based Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as a Predictor of High Grade or Extracapsular Prostate Cancer to Improve Patient Selection for Active Surveillance Vol. 189 2013 American Urological Association San Diego, California e873
27. H.U. Ahmed, Y. Hu, and T. Carter et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy J Urol 186 2011 458 464
28. E.L. Zani, O.A. Clark, and N. Rodrigues Netto Jr. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 1 111
29. J.H. Hayes, D.A. Ollendorf, and S.D. Pearson et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis JAMA 304 2010 2373 2380
30. K.A. Keegan, M.A. Dall'Era, and B. Durbin-Johnson et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis Cancer 118 2012 3512 3518