Use of mpMRI in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 320-325

  Scarpato, Kristen R ^a   Barocas, Daniel A ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Fusion biopsy; Management; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; WATCHFUL WAITING; BIOPSY; BLOOD; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84962220052     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.020     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015, 65:5-29.
2. Potosky A.L., Miller B.A., Albertsen P.C., Kramer B.S. The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1995, 273:548-552.
3. Cooperberg M.R., Carroll P.R. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. J Am Med Assoc 2015, 314:80-82.
4. Ritch C.R., Graves A.J., Keegan K.A., et al. Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality. J Urol 2015, 193:801-806.
5. Klotz L., Vesprini D., Sethukavalan P., et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015, 33:272-277.
6. Tosoian J.J., Sundi D., Trock B.J., et al. Pathologic outcomes in favorable-risk prostate cancer: comparative analysis of men electing active surveillance and immediate surgery. Eur Urol 2015, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.032.
7. Tosoian J.J., JohnBull E., Trock B.J., et al. Pathological outcomes in med with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 2013, 190:1218-1223.
8. Thaxton C.S., Loeb S., Roehl K.A., Kan D., Catalona W.J. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 2010, 75:414-420.
9. Griffin C.R., Yu X., Loeb S., et al. Pathological features after radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. J Urol 2007, 178:860-863.
10. Warlick C., Trock B.J., Landis P., Epstein J.L., Carter H.B. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:355-357.
11. Ganz P.A., Barry J.M., Burke W., et al. National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2011, 28:1-27.
12. Dall'Era M.A., Albertsen P.C., Bangma C., et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012, 62:976-983.
13. Berglund R.K., Masterson T.A., Vora K.C., Eggener S.E., Eastham J.A., Guillonneau B.D. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008, 180:1964-1967.
14. Diaz A.W., Shakir N.A., George A.K., et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Onc Sem 2015, 33:202.e1-202.e7.
15. Turkbey B., Mani H., Shah V., et al. Multiparametric 3 T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011, 186:1818-1824.
16. Da Rosa M.R., Milot L., Sugar L., et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015, 41:220-225.
17. Siddiqui M.M., Rais-Bahrami S., Turkbey B., et al. Comparison of MR/Ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 2015, 313:390-397.
18. American Urological Association: Guideline for the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: 2007 Update. Reviewed and validity confirmed 2011. ; 2007. http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Cancer.pdf.
19. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. Version 1. ; 2015. http://www.nccn.org/progessionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
20. European Association of Urology. Prostate Cancer Guidelines Version 2. ; 2015. http://https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
21. Carter H.B., Kettermann A., Warlick C., et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007, 178:2359-2364. [discussion 2364-5].
22. Tosoian J.J., Trock B.J., Landis P., et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:2185-2190.
23. Klotz L., Zhang L., Lam A., Nam R., Mamedov A., Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:126-131.
24. Dall'Era M.A., Konety B.R., Cowan J.E., et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008, 112:2664-2670.
25. van den Bergh R.C., Vasarainen H., van der Poel H.G., et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre "Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance" study. BJU Int 2010, 105:956-962.
26. van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K., et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008, 54:1297-1305.
27. Soloway M.S., Soloway C.T., Williams S., Ayyathurai R., Kava B., Manoharan M. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008, 101:165-169.
28. Soloway M.S., Soloway C.T., Eldefrawy A., Acosta K., Kava B., Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010, 58:831-835.
29. Newcomb L.F., Thompson I.M., Boyer H.D., et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 2015, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087.
30. Latini D.M., Hart S.L., Knight S.J., et al. The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol 2007, 178:826-832.
31. Ploussard G., Evanguelos X., Durand X., 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, 108:513-517.
32. Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2015, 16:24.
33. Margel D., Yap S.A., Lawrentschuk N., et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012, 187:1247-1252.
34. Hambrock T., Somford D.M., Hoeks C., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010, 183:520-528.
35. Komai Y., Numao N., Yoshida S., et al. High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy. J Urol 2013, 190:867-873.
36. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrants AB. The State of Prostate MRI in 2013. http://www.cancernetwork.com.
37. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012, 22:746-757.
38. Weinreb J.C., Barentsz J.O., Choyke P.L., et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016, 69:16-40.
39. Sonn G.A., Margolis D.J., Marks L.S. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2014, 32:903-911.
40. Yacoub J.H., Sadhna V., Moulton J.S., Eggener S., Oto A. Imaging-guided prostate biopsy: conventional and emerging techniques. Radiographic 2012, 32:819-837.
41. Hambrock T., Hoeks C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C., et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012, 61:177-184.
42. Arsov C., Becker N., Rabenalt R., et al. The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2015, 141:2061-2068.
43. Al Edwan G., Ghai S., Margel D., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging detected prostate evasive anterior tumors: further insights. Can Urol Assoc J 2015, 9:E267-E272.
44. Sonn G.A., Chang E., Natarajan S., et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014, 65:809-815.
45. Pokorny M.R., de Rooij M., Duncan E., et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014, 66:22-29.
46. Siddiqui M.M., Rais-Bahrami S., Truong H., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013, 64:713-719.
47. Vargas H.A., Akin O., Afaq A., 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, 188:1732-1738.
48. Turkbey B., Mani H., Aras O., et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillanece?. Radiology 2013, 268:144-152.
49. Stamatakis L., Siddiqui M.M., Nix J.W., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013, 119:3359-3366.
50. Marliere F., Puech P., Benkirane A., et al. The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 2014, 32:951-958.
51. Guzzo T.J., Resnick M.J., Canter D.J., 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, 30:301-305.
52. Arumainayagam N., Ahmed H.U., Moore C.M., et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013, 268:761-769.
53. Yerram N.K., Volkin D., Turkbey B., et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012, 110:E783-E788.
54. Rais-Bahrami S., Turkbey B., Rastinehad A., et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014, 20:293-298.
55. Leake J.L., Hardman R., Ojili V., et al. Prostate MRI: access to and current practice of prostate MRI in the United States. J Am Coll Radiol 2014, 11:156-160.