Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer

European Radiology

Volumn 24, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 3161-3170

  Gondo, Tatsuo ^a,b   Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Sala, Evis ^a   Zheng, Junting ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya S ^a   Bernstein, Melanie ^a   Eastham, James A ^a   Vargas, Hebert Alberto ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b TOKYO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Diffusion weighted imaging; Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PATIENT MONITORING; PREDICTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH SURVEY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; BIOPSY; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84911807092     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3367-7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Fridlyand J, Simon RM, Walrath JC et al (2013) Considerations for the successful co-development of targeted cancer therapies and companion diagnostics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12:743–755
2. Klotz L (2013) Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 20:204–209
3. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK et al (2013) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 189:S19–S25
4. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29:2185–2190
5. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update. Nat Rev Urol 8:312–320
6. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X et al (2012) Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:1672–1677
7. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:228–234
8. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) 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 61:1019–1024
9. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O et al (2013) Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268:144–152
10. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P et al (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111:1037–1045
11. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N et al (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187:1247–1252
12. Donati OF, Jung SI, Vargas HA et al (2013) Multiparametric prostate MR imaging with T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences: are all pulse sequences necessary to detect locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy? Radiology 268:440–450
13. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461
14. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381
15. Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS (2013) Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology 81:1279–1283
16. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH et al (2013) Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol 43:553–558
17. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188:1732–1738
18. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046
19. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220
20. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
21. Lesaffre E, Willems JL, Albert A (1989) Estimation of error rate in multiple group logistic discrimination. The approximate leaving-one-out method. communications in statistics. Theory Methods 18:2989–3007
22. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR (2013) Factors associated with downgrading in patients with high grade prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 31:442–447
23. Donohue JF, Bianco FJ Jr, Kuroiwa K et al (2006) Poorly differentiated prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: long-term outcome and incidence of pathological downgrading. J Urol 176:991–995
24. Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M, Klein EA, Dong F, Jones JS (2009) Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:43–48
25. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495–499
26. Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A et al (2012) Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 265:478–487
27. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ (2013) Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 10:473–482
28. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2012) Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)
29. Tosoian JJ, Johnbull E, Trock BJ et al (2013) Pathologic outcomes in men with low-risk and very low-risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 190:1218–1222
30. Adam M, Hannah A, Budäus L et al (2014) A tertiary gleason pattern in the prostatectomy specimen and its association to adverse outcome after radical prostatectomy; results of a large contemporary prostatectomy series. J Urol
31. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
32. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2013) Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W612–W618