Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance - Do the epstein criteria still apply?

Journal of Urology

Volumn 192, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 385-390

  Hu, Jim C ^a   Chang, Edward ^a   Natarajan, Shyam ^a   Margolis, Daniel J ^a   Macairan, Malu ^a   Lieu, Patricia ^a   Huang, Jiaoti ^a   Sonn, Geoffrey ^a   Dorey, Frederick J ^a   Marks, Leonard S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; patient selection; prostate; prostatic neoplasms; ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; ULTRASOUND; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING ULTRASOUND; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

AGED; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84904260876     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. M.A. Dall'era, P.C. Albertsen, and C. Bangma et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature Eur Urol 62 2012 976
2. 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 271 1994 368
3. K.K. Hodge, J.E. McNeal, and M.K. Terris et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate J Urol 142 1989 71
4. N.L. Robertson, Y. Hu, and H.U. Ahmed et al. Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study Eur Urol 65 2014 628
5. C.M. Hoeks, D.M. Somford, and I.M. van Oort et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study Invest Radiol 49 2014 165
6. J.K. Mullins, D. Bonekamp, and P. Landis et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance BJU Int 111 2013 1037
7. 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
8. D.M. Somford, C.M. Hoeks, and C.A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer Invest Radiol 48 2013 152
9. L. Stamatakis, M.M. Siddiqui, and J.W. Nix et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer Cancer 119 2013 3359
10. C.M. Moore, V. Kasivisvanathan, and S. Eggener et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group Eur Urol 64 2013 544
11. S. Natarajan, L.S. Marks, and D.J. Margolis et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system Urol Oncol 29 2011 334
12. G.A. Sonn, S. Natarajan, and D.J. Margolis et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device J Urol 189 2013 86
13. J.O. Barentsz, J. Richenberg, and R. Clements et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 Eur Radiol 22 2012 746
14. M.S. Soloway, C.T. Soloway, and A. Eldefrawy et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment Eur Urol 58 2010 831
15. R.K. Berglund, T.A. Masterson, and K.C. Vora et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance J Urol 180 2008 1964
16. A.F. Kotb, S. Tanguay, and M.A. Luz et al. Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14 2011 53
17. I.F. San Francisco, L. Werner, and M.M. Regan 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 185 2011 471
18. 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
19. 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
20. P.C. Walsh Perfecting nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: sailing in uncharted waters Can J Urol 15 2008 4230
21. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176
22. H.A. Vargas, O. Akin, and A. Afaq et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer J Urol 188 2012 1732
23. D. Margel, S.A. Yap, and N. Lawrentschuk et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study J Urol 187 2012 1247
24. C. Jeldres, N. Suardi, and J. Walz et al. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men Eur Urol 54 2008 1306
25. M.C. Lee, F. Dong, and A.J. Stephenson et al. The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 58 2010 90
26. Wong LM, Alibhai SM, Trottier G, et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol, Epub ahead of print May 2, 2013.
27. A.C. Reese, P. Landis, and M. Han et al. Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis J Urol 190 2013 2033
28. K.L. Penney, M.J. Stampfer, and J.L. Jahn et al. Gleason grade progression is uncommon Cancer Res 73 2013 5163