Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance

European Radiology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1786-1792

  Kim, Tae Heon ^a   Jeong, Jae Yong ^a   Lee, Sin Woo ^a   Kim, Chan Kyo ^a   Park, Byung Kwan ^a   Sung, Hyun Hwan ^a   Jeon, Hwang Gyun ^a   Jeong, Byong Chang ^a   Seo, Seong Il ^a   Lee, Hyun Moo ^a   Choi, Han Yong ^a   Jeon, Seong Soo ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion weighted MRI; Patient selection; Prostatic neoplasm

Indexed keywords

AGED; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEMINAL VESICLE; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEMINAL VESICLES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84939962101     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3566-2     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Glass AS, Punnen S, Cooperberg MR (2013) Divorcing diagnosis from treatment: contemporary management of low-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 54:417–425
2. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374
3. Klotz L (2010) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep 11:165–171
4. 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
5. Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR (2009) Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 181:1628–1633, discussion 1633-1624
6. Kim TH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al (2014) Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols. Int J Urol 21:377–381
7. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:126–131
8. Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C (2009) Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 104:1501–1504
9. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC (2014) Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 65:1023–1031
10. Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS (2011) Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 21:1111–1118
11. Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al (2013) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Investig Radiol 48:152–157
12. 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
13. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al (2012) Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012:374805
14. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF et al (2009) A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 56:981–987
15. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 84:31–37
16. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH (2007) Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52:1560–1563
17. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (2000) Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer 89:1056–1064
18. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
19. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W et al (2012) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 156:591–595
20. 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
21. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M (2010) Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 58:831–835
22. Motamedinia P, RiChard JL, McKiernan JM, DeCastro GJ, Benson MC (2012) Role of immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy to ensure accurate eligibility for active surveillance. Urology 80:1070–1074
23. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782
24. Shigemura K, Yamanaka N, Yamashita M (2013) Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predict a high Gleason score of prostate cancer? Korean J Urol 54:234–238
25. Doo KW, Sung DJ, Park BJ et al (2012) Detectability of low and intermediate or high risk prostate cancer with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 22:1812–1819
26. Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ et al (2012) 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 30:301–305
27. 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
28. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al (2014) Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 113:864–870
29. Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS (2013) Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:840–846