nach oben

Current Urology Reports

Erschienen in:

01.06.2015 | New Imaging Techniques (A Rastinehad and S Rais-Bahrami, Section Editors)

The Role of MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

verfasst von: Michele Fascelli, Arvin K. George, Thomas Frye, Baris Turkbey, Peter L. Choyke, Peter A. Pinto

Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports | Ausgabe 6/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Approximately one in seven American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime, and at least 50 % of newly diagnosed patients will present with low-risk disease. In the last decade, the decision-making paradigm for management has shifted due to high rates of disease detection and overtreatment, attributed to prostate-specific antigen screening, with more men deferring definitive treatment for active surveillance. The advent of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) and MRI/ transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion-guided prostate biopsy has refined the process of diagnosis, identifying patients with clinically-significant cancer and larger disease burden who would most likely benefit from intervention. In parallel, the utilization of MP-MRI in the surveillance of low-grade, low-volume disease is on the rise, reflecting support in a growing body of literature. The aim of this review is to appraise and summarize the data evaluating the role of magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375.CrossRefPubMed

Final Recommendation Statement: Prostate Cancer: Screening—US Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/prostate-cancer-screening#citation9. Accessed December 15, 2014.

Stephenson SK, Chang EK, Marks LS. Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):315–26. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.007.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

4.••

Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systemic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014. doi:10.1002/jmri.24710. Prospective trial evaluating the ability of fusion biopsy to detect clinically significant diease and the predictive value of MRI utilizing established thresholds of Gleason ≥7, and Gleason 6 >50%.PubMed

Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2010;256(1):176–83. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091147.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Linehan WM, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013;268(1). doi:10.1148/radiol.13121325/-/DC1.

Klotz L. Active surveillance: patient selection. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(3):239–44. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f8f6b.PubMed

Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113162.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

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. 2014. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192.PubMed

10.

Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.

11.

Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2664–70. doi:10.1002/cncr.23502.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hricak H, Williams RD, Spring DB, et al. Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141(6):1101–10. doi:10.2214/ajr.141.6.1101.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.026.PubMed

14.

Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648–58. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

15.

Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Grant KB, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(3):387. doi:10.1007/s11934-013-0387-9.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rothwax JT, George AK, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Multiparametric MRI in biopsy guidance for prostate cancer: fusion-guided. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:439171. doi:10.1155/2014/439171.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

17.

Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1749–54. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.007.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E694–700. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11503.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

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. 2014;114(6b):E43–9. doi:10.1111/bju.12670.CrossRefPubMed

20.

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. 2014:1-32. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0250.

21.

Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol. 2013;190(6):2020–5. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol. 2012;30(2):213–8. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on MRI, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.12938.

24.

Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2152–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1721–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.052.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Yerram NK, 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(11 Pt B):E783–8. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11646.x.CrossRefPubMed

27.•

Siddiqui MM, 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(5):713–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059. The authors showed that multiparametric MRI and fusion biopsy upgraded a significant percentage of cases and preferentially detected high grade disease compared to 12-core.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Comparison of MR-US fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.12871.

29.

Sonn GA, 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(4):809–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

30.

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. 2013;111(7):1037–45. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

31.

Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Mullins JK, Epstein JI, Carter HB, Macura KJ. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characterization of prostate lesions in the active surveillance population: incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of disease reclassification. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 37(6):948-956. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e31829ae20a

32.

Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1728–34. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2432–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

34.

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(6):864–70. doi:10.1111/bju.12423.CrossRefPubMed

35.

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. 2014;32(6):741–7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):40–6. doi:10.1038/pcan.2013.43.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

37.••

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. 2013;119(18):3359–66. doi:10.1002/cncr.28216. This study assessed parameters predictive of progression in an active surveillance cohort of which 29% were no longer candidates following fusion biopsy. A nomogram was constructed to determine eligibility to be placed or remain on active surveillance based on predictive MRI parameters.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Røder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer—a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(8):830–5. doi:10.1002/jso.23584.CrossRefPubMed

39.

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. 2014;4:294. doi:10.3389/fonc.2014.00294.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

40.

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. 2012;187(4):1247–52. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–90. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

42.

Singer EA, Kaushal A, Turkbey B, Couvillon A, Pinto PA, Parnes HL. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(3):243–50. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e3283527f99.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(17):2810–6. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.7311.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Wolters T, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Schröder FH. Is prostate-specific antigen velocity selective for clinically significant prostate cancer in screening? European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam). Eur Urol. 2009;55(2):385–92. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.046.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Thomsen FB, Christensen IJ, Brasso K, Røder MA, Iversen P. Prostate-specific antigen doubling time as a progression criterion in an active surveillance programme for patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113(5b):E98–E105. doi:10.1111/bju.12367.CrossRefPubMed

46.

George AK, Pinto PA, Rais-Bahrami S. Multiparametric MRI in the PSA screening era. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:465816. doi:10.1155/2014/465816.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

47.

Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, et al. Identification of threshold prostate-specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer by MRI/US fusion guided biopsy. J Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.002.

48.

Sonn G a, Filson CP, Chang E, et al. Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.003.

49.

Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. The role of image-guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.083.

50.

Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey 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. 2014;20(4):293–8. doi:10.5152/dir.2014.13319.CrossRefPubMed

51.••

Walton-Diaz A, Shakir NA, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy in the follow-up of prostate cancer progression for men on active surveillance. Abstr #PD12-02 Present AUA Annu Meet 2014; May 16-21, 2014; Orlando. FL J Urol. 2014;191(4S):e346–7. Only study to establish the utility of serial MRI and serial fusion biopsy in active surveillance. The authors concluded that fusion biopsy detects progression with a lesser number of cores though both fusion and 12-core biopsy are valuable in follow-up.CrossRef

52.

Mohler JL. The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(2):145.PubMed

53.

Thomsen FB, Røder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60(2):A4575.PubMed

54.

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(1):126–31. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2185–90. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):981–7. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.020.CrossRefPubMed

57.

D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The Role of MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer
verfasst von: Michele Fascelli
Arvin K. George
Thomas Frye
Baris Turkbey
Peter L. Choyke
Peter A. Pinto
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports / Ausgabe 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0507-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Männern mit Zystitis Schmalband-Antibiotika verordnen

03.05.2024 Zystitis Nachrichten

Die akute Zystitis von Männern und ihre Therapie sind wenig erforscht. Norwegische Forscher haben das nachgeholt. Ihr Rat: Erst einmal keine Breitbandantibiotika verordnen.

Bestrahlung nach Prostatektomie: mehr Schaden als Nutzen?

02.05.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Eine adjuvante Radiotherapie nach radikaler Prostata-Op. bringt den Betroffenen wahrscheinlich keinen Vorteil. Im Gegenteil: Durch die Bestrahlung steigt offenbar das Risiko für Harn- und Stuhlinkontinenz.

D-Mannose ohne Nutzen in der Prävention von HWI-Rezidiven

02.05.2024 Harnwegsinfektionen in der Urologie Nachrichten

D-Mannose, eine Hoffnungsträgerin in der Rezidivprophylaxe von Harnwegsinfektionen, hat in einer Studie nicht mehr bewirken können als ein Placebo. Die Empfehlung zur Einnahme entfalle damit, so die Autoren.

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Hybrid-DRG-Verordnung soll dazu führen, dass mehr chirurgische Eingriffe ambulant durchgeführt werden, wie es in anderen Ländern schon länger üblich ist. Die gleiche Vergütung im ambulanten und stationären Sektor hatten Niedergelassene schon lange gefordert. Aber die Umsetzung bereitet ihnen doch Kopfzerbrechen.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

The Role of MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Männern mit Zystitis Schmalband-Antibiotika verordnen

Bestrahlung nach Prostatektomie: mehr Schaden als Nutzen?

D-Mannose ohne Nutzen in der Prävention von HWI-Rezidiven

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

Update Urologie

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2015

Practical Tips for Safe and Efficient Robotic Cystectomy

The Evolution of Vasectomy Reversal

Evaluation and Treatment of Penile Thrombophlebitis (Mondor’s Disease)

Evaluation and Management of Chronic Scrotal Content Pain

Is Frozen Section Analysis of Ureteral Margins at Time of Radical Cystectomy Useful?

Immunotherapy in Prostate Cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Männern mit Zystitis Schmalband-Antibiotika verordnen

Bestrahlung nach Prostatektomie: mehr Schaden als Nutzen?

D-Mannose ohne Nutzen in der Prävention von HWI-Rezidiven

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

Update Urologie