PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3+4) prostate cancer

European Radiology

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 3580-3587

  Woo, Sungmin ^a   Kim, Sang Youn ^a   Lee, Joongyub ^b   Kim, Seung Hyup ^a   Cho, Jeong Yeon ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Downgrade; Gleason score; MRI; PI RADS; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURGERY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DOWN REGULATION; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC PROSTATE NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PATHOGENESIS; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2; PROSTATECTOMY; SCORING SYSTEM; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEMINAL VESICLE; TUMOR INVASION;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEMINAL VESICLES;

EID: 84957575109     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4230-9     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2101
2. 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
3. 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
4. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update. Nat Rev Urol 8:312–320
5. 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
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. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 166:1679–1683
8. Gondo T, Hricak H, Sala E et al (2014) Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 24:3161–3170
9. 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
10. Gondo T, Poon BY, Matsumoto K, Bernstein M, Sjoberg DD, Eastham JA (2015) Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy confirmed Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:81–86
11. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
12. Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
13. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142818:142818
14. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA et al (2015) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6
15. 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
16. Firth D (1993) Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80:27–38
17. Paul P, Pennell ML, Lemeshow S (2013) Standardizing the power of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test in large data sets. Stat Med 32:67–80
18. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI (2012) Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)
19. Ellis CL, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2013) Multiple cores of Gleason score 6 correlate with favourable findings at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 111:E306–E309
20. Mullins JK, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Loeb S (2012) The impact of anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy on cancer control: the 30-year anniversary. J Urol 188:2219–2224
21. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI (2000) The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 24:563–569
22. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT (2007) Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243:28–53
23. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2015) Extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with equivocal findings on T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W168–W175
24. Kosaka T, Mizuno R, Shinojima T et al (2014) The implications of prostate-specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in men
25. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2015) Periprostatic fat thickness on MRI: correlation with Gleason score in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W43–W47
26. Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG et al (2003) Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 61:589–595
27. Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N (2013) Transperineal biopsy of the prostate—is this the future? Nat Rev Urol 10:690–702