Role of PI-RADSv2 with multiparametric MRI in determining who needs active surveillance or definitive treatment according to PRIAS

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1753-1759

  Park, Jung Jae ^a,b   Park, Byung Kwan ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Kangwon National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

classification; Gleason score; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MRI; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING AND REPORT AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; T2 WEIGHTED IMAGING; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EUROPE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; EUROPE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84999864916     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25534     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012;62:976–983.
2. Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol 2016;13:151–167.
3. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007;52:1560–1563.
4. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–757.
5. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016;69:41–49.
6. American College of Radiology. MR prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.0. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/. Accessed April 4, 2016.
7. Min JH, Park BK, Park JJ, Park SY, Kim CK. Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer using prebiopsy MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:341–346.
8. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014;65:1023–1031.
9. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015;67:627–636.
10. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68:1045–1053.
11. Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 2016:151133.
12. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60:291–303.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995;310:170.
14. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–35.
15. Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Cagiannos I, et al. International validation of a preoperative nomogram for prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3206–3212.
16. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2008;54:371–381.
17. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU-Int 2011;108:E202–210.
18. Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172:98–102.
19. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21:566–576.
20. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176:979–984; discussion 984.
21. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
22. Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, Parkinson MC. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU-Int 2002;89:886–889.
23. Park BK, Lee HM, Kim CK, Choi HY, Park JW. Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy. Invest Radiol 2008;43:789–793.
24. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009;182:2274–2278.
25. Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS. Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology 2013;81:1279–1283.
26. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013;43:553–558.
27. 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 2014;113:864–870.
28. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013;268:144–152.
29. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W876–881.
30. Park BK, Jeon SS, Park B, et al. Comparison of re-biopsy with preceded MRI and re-biopsy without preceded MRI in patients with previous negative biopsy and persistently high PSA. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:571–577.
31. Doo KW, Sung DJ, Park BJ, et al. Detectability of low and intermediate or high risk prostate cancer with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1812–1819.