Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 10, 2015, Pages

  De Cobelli, Ottavio ^a   Terracciano, Daniela ^b   Tagliabue, Elena ^a   Raimondi, Sara ^a   Bottero, Danilo ^a   Cioffi, Antonio ^a   Jereczek Fossa, Barbara ^a   Petralia, Giuseppe ^a   Cordima, Giovanni ^a   Almeida, Gilberto Laurino ^c   Lucarelli, Giuseppe ^d   Buonerba, Carlo ^e   Matei, Deliu Victor ^a   Renne, Giuseppe ^a   Di Lorenzo, Giuseppe ^b   Ferro, Matteo ^a  

^a EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSIDADE DO VALE DO ITAJAÍ   (Brazil)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^e REFERRAL CANCER CENTER OF BASILICATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM SCORE; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SEMINAL VESICLE; SEMINAL VESICLE INVASION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

BIOPSY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SEMINAL VESICLES;

EID: 84948701707     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139696     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(2):120. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459 PMID: 22801674
2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR,et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104(2):125. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr500 PMID: 22228146
3. Vickers AJ, Wolters T, Savage CJ, Cronin AM, O'Brien MF, Pettersson K et al. Prostate-specific antigen velocity for early detection of prostate cancer: result from a large, representative, population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2009; 56(5):753. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.047 PMID: 19682790
4. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC., et al. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(6):1023. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.027 PMID: 24491309
5. Loeb S1, Bruinsma SM2, Nicholson J3, Briganti A4, Pickles T5, Kakehi Y6 et al. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinicopathologic Variables and Biomarkers for Risk Stratification. Eur Urol. 2015; 67(4):619. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010 PMID: 25457014
6. Cantiello F, Russo GI, Ferro M, Cicione A, Cimino S, Favilla Vet al. Prognostic accuracy of Prostate Health Index and urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 in predicting pathologic features after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015 Jan 6. pii: S1078-1439(14)00448-7.
7. Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Bruzzese D, Perdonà S, Mazzarella C, Perruolo G, et al. Improving the prediction of pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: the value of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), prostate health index (phi) and sarcosine. Anticancer Res. 2015 Feb; 35(2):1017. PMID: 25667489
8. Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Smith S2, Miller J, Nguyen C, Li Q, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar; 33(3):109.e15.
9. Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-Bahrami S, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Clinical Implications of a Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based Nomogram Applied to Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2015 Jan 26. pii: S0022-5347(15)00178-0.
10. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rothwax JT, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar 5. pii: S1078-1439(15)00057-5.
11. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, Begum H, Partin AW, Epstein JI, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int. 2013 Jun; 111(7):1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x PMID: 23464904
12. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, Yu C, Zakian KL, Udo K, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012 May; 109(9):1315. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x PMID: 21933336
13. Barentsz JO1, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr; 22(4):746. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y PMID: 22322308
14. Bangma CH, Bul M, Roobol M. The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. Curr Opin Urol. 2012 May; 22(3):216. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dcc7 PMID: 22453333
15. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PAet al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011; 24 (1):16. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156 PMID: 20818340
16. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746e57.
17. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M,et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(6):986. doi: 10. 1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044 PMID: 22819387
18. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making; 26(6):565. PMID: 17099194
19. McVey GP, McPhail S, Fowler S, McIntosh G, Gillatt D, Parker CC Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Cancer Registry. BJU Int. 2010; 106(8):1161. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09288.x PMID: 20456339
20. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162 PMID: 22808955
21. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. Mediumterm outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(6):981. doi: 10. 1016/j.eururo.2013.02.020 PMID: 23473579
22. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012; 188(4):1131. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2012.06.009 PMID: 22901577
23. Isharwal S, Makarov DV, Sokoll LJ, Landis P, Marlow C, Epstein JI, et al. ProPSA and diagnostic biopsy tissue DNA content combination improves accuracy to predict need for prostate cancer treatment among men enrolled in an active surveillance program. Urology. 2011; 77(3):763.e1. doi: 10.1016/j. urology.2010.07.526 PMID: 21216447
24. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2009; 56(6):891. doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2009.07.053 PMID: 19683860
25. Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Terry S, Allory Y, Ouzaïd I, Vacherot F, et al. Detailed biopsy pathologic features as predictive factors for initial reclassification in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2013; 31(7):1060. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.018 PMID: 22300755
26. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int. 2013; 112(8):1080. doi: 10.1111/bju.12259 PMID: 23937255
27. Vargas HA1, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012; 188(5):1732. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024 PMID: 23017866
28. Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, Walshe T, Harris AC, Chang SD, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology. 2015; 85(2):423. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.060 PMID: 25623709
29. Kayat Bittencourt L, Litjens G, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Turkbey B, Gasparetto EL, Barentsz JO, et al. Prostate Cancer: The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Criteria for Predicting Extraprostatic Extension by Using 3-T Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015 Apr 3:141412.
30. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013 Oct; 190(4):1213-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro. 2013.03.127 PMID: 23727188
31. Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Bivalacqua TJ, Rosen MA, Bergey MR et al 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. 2012 May-Jun; 30(3):301-5. doi: 10.1016/j. urolonc.2010.08.023 PMID: 21856187
32. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR et al Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013 Jul; 268 (1):144-52. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121325 PMID: 23468576
33. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, Ouzaïd I, Allory Y, Bouanane M et al 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. 2011 Aug; 108(4):513-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x PMID: 21176083