Integration of multiparametric MRI into active surveillance of prostate cancer

Future Oncology

Volumn 12, Issue 21, 2016, Pages 2513-2529

  Holtz, Jamie N ^a   Tay, Kae Jack ^a   Polascik, Thomas J ^a,b   Gupta, Rajan T ^a,b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; fusion biopsy; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer; targeted biopsy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; DISEASE BURDEN; GENERAL ASPECTS OF DISEASE; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVERDIAGNOSIS; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMINAL VESICLE; SYSTEMATIC BIOPSY; TARGETED BIOPSY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR INVASION; BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL OVERUSE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84991570974     PISSN: 14796694     EISSN: 17448301     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2016-0142     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Epstein MM, Edgren G, Rider JR, Mucci LA, Adami HO. Temporal trends in cause of death among Swedish and US men with prostate cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 104(17), 1335-1342 (2012
2. Prostate Cancer. www.cancer.org
3. Loeb S Bjurlin A, Nicholson J et al Ove osis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65(6) 1046-1055 2014
4. Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 304(21), 2373-2380 (2010
5. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28(7), 1117-1123 (2010
6. Dall era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 62(6), 976-983 (2012
7. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 68(1), 8-19 (2015
8. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(30), 3379-3385 (2015
9. 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. 33(3), 272-277 (2015
10. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193(3), 807-811 (2015
11. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 64(6), 981-987 (2013
12. Chamie K, Sonn GA, Finley DS, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology 83(2), 369-375 (2014
13. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J. Urol. 170(5), 1792-1797 (2003
14. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 109(9), 1315-1322 (2012
15. Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, Lilja H, Lodding P, Hugosson J. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int. J. Cancer 120(1), 170-174 (2007
16. Stamey TA, Mcneal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281(15), 1395-1400 (1999
17. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 60(2), 291-303 (2011
18. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268(1) 144-152 2013
19. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015 version . Eur. Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 (2015) (Epub ahead of print
20. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(2), 228-234 (2011
21. Van Den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int. 103(11), 1472-1477 (2009
22. Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J. Urol. 187(5), 1594-1599 (2012
23. Chamie K, Williams SB, Hershman DL, Wright JD, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Population-based assessment of determining predictors for quality of prostate cancer surveillance. Cancer 121(23), 4150-4157 (2015
24. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J. Urol. 178(6), 2359-2364, discussion 2364- 2355 (2007
25. Hoeks CM, Somford DM, Van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest. Radiol. 49(3), 165-172 (2014
26. Tay KJ, Mendez M, Moul JW, Polascik TJ. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: can we modernize contemporary protocols to improve patient selection and outcomes in the focal therapy era? Curr. Opin. Urol. 25(3), 185-190 (2015
27. Ghai S, Toi A. Role of transrectal ultrasonogíraphy in prostate cancer. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 50(6), 1061-1073 (2012
28. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. 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(5), 1019-1024 (2012
29. Fu Q, Moul JW, Banez LL, et al. Association between percentage of tumor involvement and Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer. Med. Oncol. 29(5), 3339-3344 (2012
30. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J. Urol. 193(1), 87-94 (2015
31. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology? Urol. Oncol. 32(6), 741-747 (2014
32. Margel D, Yap SA, 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. 187(4), 1247-1252 (2012
33. Dianat SS, Carter HB, Pienta KJ, et al. Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes. Urology 85(1), 147-153 (2015
34. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int. 111(7), 1037-1045 (2013).
35. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 113(6), 864-870 (2014
36. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J. Urol. 187(6), 2032-2038 (2012
37. De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-Analysis. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 202(2), 343-351 (2014
38. Appayya MB, Johnston EW, Punwani S. The role of multi-parametric MRI in loco-regional staging of men diagnosed with early prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 25(6), 510-517 (2015
39. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, 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 268(3), 761-769 (2013
40. Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 41(1), 220-225 (2015
41. Giannarini G, Zazzara M, Rossanese M, et al. Will multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging be the future tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer? Front. Oncol. 4, 294 (2014
42. Vargas HA, 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. 188(5), 1732-1738 (2012
43. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui Mrganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int. 115(3), 381-388 (2015
44. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Chung PH, et al. D Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 185(3), 815-820 (2011
45. Turkbey B, Brown AM, Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J. Clin. doi:10.3322/caac.21333 (2015) (Epub ahead of print
46. Puech P, Sufana-Iancu A, Renard B, Lemaitre L. Prostate MRI: can we do without DCE sequences in 2013? Diagn. Interv. Imaging 94(12), 1299-1311 (2013
47. Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F, et al. Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin. Radiol. 68(6), e323-e330 (2013
48. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 266(1), 207-217 (2013
49. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 18(3), 288-296 (2015
50. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 22(4), 746-757 (2012
51. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level - can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol. Oncol. 32(1), 45.e17-e22 (2014
52. Kim TH, Jeong JY, Lee SW, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance. Eur. Radiol. 25(6), 1786-1792 (2015
53. Sankineni S, M, Choyke PL. Functional MRI in prostate cancer detection. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 590638 (2014
54. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score = 3 + 3 = 6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest. Radiol. 47(3), 153-158 (2012
55. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258(2) 488-495 2011
56. Henderson DR, De Souza NM, Thomas K, et al. Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur. Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.010 (2015) (Epub ahead of print
57. Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol. Oncol. 32(8), 1292-1299 (2014
58. Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. The role of magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy in stratifying men for risk of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 194(1), 105-111 (2015
59. Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and image-guided biopsy to detect seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer. J. Endourol. 28(11), 1283-1289 (2014
60. De Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, et al. Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0139696 (2015
61. Grey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, Wolfe K, Liyanage SH, Acher PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int. 115(5), 728-735 (2015
62. Hamoen EH, De Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-Analysis. Eur. Urol. 67(6), 1112-1121 (2015).
63. Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J. Urol. 192(1), 67-74 (2014
64. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, 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. 108(4), 513-517 (2011
65. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur. Urol. 65(1), 124-137 (2014
66. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur. Urol. 62(3), 462-468 (2012
67. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. doi:10.1016/j. eururo.2015.10.041 (2015) (EPub ahead of print
68. Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom. Imaging 40(1), 134-142 (2015
69. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 183(2), 520-527 (2010
70. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Rastinehad AR, et al. Navigating MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: optimizing the process and avoiding technical pitfalls. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 16(3), 303-311 (2016
71. Pokorny MR, 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. 66(1), 22-29 (2014
72. Okoro C, George AK, Siddiqui MM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy significantly outperforms systematic 12-core biopsy for prediction of total magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume in active surveillance patients. J. Endourol. 29(10), 1115-1121 (2015
73. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 186(4), 1281-1285 (2011
74. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy - prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268(2), 461-469 (2013
75. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J. Urol. 192(5), 1367-1373 (2014
76. Salami SS Ben-Levi, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 115(4), 562-570 (2015
77. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4), 390-397 (2015
78. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 108(8 Pt 2), E171-E178 (2011
79. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 114(6b), E43-E49 (2014
80. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. Prostatic evasive anterior tumours : the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 105(9), 1231-1236 (2010
81. Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 110(11 Pt B), E694-E700 (2012
82. Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM, et al. Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom. Imaging 40(7), 2557-2565 (2015
83. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur. Urol. 66(2), 343-351 (2014
84. Felker ER, Wu J, Natarajan S, et al. Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value. J. Urol. 195(5), 1421-1427 (2015
85. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol. Oncol. 33(5), 202.e1-7 (2015
86. Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 20(4), 293-298 (2014
87. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br. J. Radiol. 84(997), 31-37 (2011
88. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 67(4), 627-636 (2015
89. Keegan KA, Dall era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer 118(14), 3512-3518 (2012
90. De Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur. Urol. 66(3), 430-436 (2014
91. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 119(18), 3359-3366 (2013
92. Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. J. Urol. 193(6), 1943-1949 (2015
93. Laviana AA, Ilg AM, Veruttipong D, et al. Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- And long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 122(3), 447-455 (2015