Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: A preliminary report on disease outcomes

Urology

Volumn 85, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 147-154

  Dianat, Seyed Saeid ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^b   Pienta, Kenneth J ^b   Schaeffer, Edward M ^b   Landis, Patricia K ^b   Epstein, Jonathan I ^b   Trock, Bruce J ^b   Macura, Katarzyna J ^a,b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; VERY ELDERLY; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84919400569     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.085     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Prostate Cancer 2013 Version 2
2. M.A. Dall'Era, P.C. Albertsen, and C. Bangma Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature Eur Urol 62 2012 976 983
3. J.J. Tosoian, B.J. Trock, and P. Landis Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Clin Oncol 29 2011 2185 2190
4. L.D. Venderbos, L.P. Bokhorst, and C.H. Bangma Active surveillance: oncologic outcome Curr Opin Urol 23 2013 268 272
5. R.C. van den Bergh, P.C. Albertsen, and C.H. Bangma Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review Eur Urol 64 2013 204 215
6. S. Loeb, H.B. Carter, and S.I. Berndt Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare J Urol 186 2011 1830 1834
7. S. Loeb, S. van den Heuvel, and X. Zhu Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial Eur Urol 61 2012 1110 1114
8. L.M. Wong, S.M. Alibhai, and G. Trottier A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression [e-pub ahead of print] Eur Urol 2013 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.038. Accessed September 24, 2014.
9. N.M. Corcoran, R.G. Casey, and M.K. Hong The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume BJU Int 110 2012 36 42
10. Y. Komai, N. Numao, and S. Yoshida High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy J Urol 190 2013 867 873
11. J.W. Nix, B. Turkbey, and A. Hoang Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla BJU Int 110 2012 E694 700
12. J.K. Mullins, D. Bonekamp, and P. Landis Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance BJU Int 111 2013 1037 1045
13. J.I. Epstein, P.C. Walsh, and M. Carmichael Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer JAMA 271 1994 368 374
14. K.S. Tseng, P. Landis, and J.I. Epstein Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer J Urol 183 2010 1779 1785
15. M. Bul, R.C. van den Bergh, and A. Rannikko Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program Eur Urol 61 2012 370 377
16. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176 183
17. H.A. Vargas, O. Akin, and A. Afaq 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 1738
18. D. Margel, S.A. Yap, and N. Lawrentschuk 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 1252
19. G. Ploussard, E. Xylinas, and X. Durand Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme BJU Int 108 2011 513 517
20. B. Turkbey, H. Mani, and V. Shah 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
21. A. Shukla-Dave, H. Hricak, and O. Akin Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer BJU Int 109 2012 1315 1322
22. F. Bratan, E. Niaf, and C. Melodelima Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study Eur Radiol 23 2013 2019 2029
23. D.H. Lee, K.C. Koo, and S.H. Lee 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 2013 553 558
24. D. Sundi, A.E. Ross, and E.B. Humphreys African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol 31 2013 2991 2997