Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance

BJU International

Volumn 113, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 864-870

  Park, Bong H ^a,b   Jeon, Hwang G ^a   Choo, Seol H ^a   Jeong, Byong C ^a   Seo, Seong I ^a   Jeon, Seong S ^a   Choi, Han Y ^a   Lee, Hyun M ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Bupyeong gu   (South Korea)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER STAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PATIENT SELECTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84902170324     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12423     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et=al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126-131
2. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
3. Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB,. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 1779-1785
4. 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
5. 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: 1964-1968
6. Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, et=al. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 625-631
7. Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C,. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1163-1175
8. Seitz M, Shukla-Dave A, Bjartell A, et=al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 801-814
9. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et=al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560-1563
10. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B,. Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 7-11
11. Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS,. Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 1111-1118
12. 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
13. 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
14. Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et=al. Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 2008; 247: 444-450
15. 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
16. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et=al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006; 241: 449-458
17. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, et=al. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2006; 176: 2432-2437
18. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et=al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
19. Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP, Kurhanewicz J,. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 26: 1071-1080
20. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, et=al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W316-322
21. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H,. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 167-172
22. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et=al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 774-782
23. Yoshimitsu K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H, et=al. Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with stepwise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27: 132-139
24. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et=al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900-908
25. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, et=al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: 471-476
26. 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
27. El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A, et=al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013; 111: 53-59