Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: Recommendations for interval imaging follow-up

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 293-298

  Rais Bahrami, Soroush ^a   Türkbey, Bariş ^a   Rastinehad, Ardeshir R ^a   Walton Diaz, Annerleim ^a   Hoang, Anthony N ^a   Minhaj Siddiqui, M ^a   Stamatakis, Lambros ^a   Truong, Hong ^a   Nix, Jeffrey W ^a   Vourganti, Srinivas ^a   Grant, Kinzya B ^a   Merino, Maria J ^a   Wood, Bradford J ^a   Choyke, Peter L ^a   Pinto, Peter A ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; FOLLOW UP; GROWTH RATE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAGNET; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-ULTRASOUND FUSION-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY DEVICE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE LESION MONITOR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; CONTRAST MEDIA; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84903770958     PISSN: 13053825     EISSN: 13053612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5152/dir.2014.13319     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63:11-30. [CrossRef]
2. Hernandez J, Thompson IM. Prostate-specific antigen: a review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker. Cancer 2004; 101:894-904. [CrossRef]
3. Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control 2008; 19:175-181. [CrossRef]
4. 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; 71:933-938. [CrossRef]
5. 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. [CrossRef]
6. Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996; 156:1059-1063. [CrossRef]
7. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, 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 2011; 185:121-125. [CrossRef]
8. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012; 188:1157-1163. [CrossRef]
9. 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. [CrossRef]
10. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010; 255:89-99. [CrossRef]
11. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190:1721-1727. [CrossRef]
12. 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. [CrossRef]
13. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110:E783-E788. [CrossRef]
14. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013; 268:144-152. [CrossRef]
15. Turkbey B, Thomasson D, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010; 16:186-192.
16. Derweesh IH, Kupelian PA, Zippe C, et al. Continuing trends in pathological stage migration in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2004; 22:300-306. [CrossRef]
17. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:203-213. [CrossRef]
18. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Prostate Cancer: Clinical Summary of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. AHRQ Publication No. 12-05160-EF-3. May 2012.
19. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:120-134. [CrossRef]
20. 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; 185:815-820. [CrossRef]
21. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119:3359-3366. [CrossRef]
22. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990; 66:1225-1233. [CrossRef]