Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

2016; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 197; Issue: 3 Part 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109

1527-3792

Thomas Frye, Arvin K. George, Amichai Kilchevsky, Mahir Maruf, Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui, Michael Kongnyuy, Akhil Muthigi, Hui Han, Howard L. Parnes, Maria J. Merino, Peter L. Choyke, Barış Türkbey, Bradford J. Wood, Peter A. Pinto,

MRI in cancer diagnosis

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Mar 2017Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Thomas P. Frye, Arvin K. George, Amichai Kilchevsky, Mahir Maruf, M. Minhaj Siddiqui, Michael Kongnyuy, Akhil Muthigi, Hui Han, Howard L. Parnes, Maria Merino, Peter L. Choyke, Baris Turkbey, Brad Wood, and Peter A. Pinto Thomas P. FryeThomas P. Frye More articles by this author , Arvin K. GeorgeArvin K. George More articles by this author , Amichai KilchevskyAmichai Kilchevsky More articles by this author , Mahir MarufMahir Maruf More articles by this author , M. Minhaj SiddiquiM. Minhaj Siddiqui More articles by this author , Michael KongnyuyMichael Kongnyuy More articles by this author , Akhil MuthigiAkhil Muthigi More articles by this author , Hui HanHui Han More articles by this author , Howard L. ParnesHoward L. Parnes More articles by this author , Maria MerinoMaria Merino More articles by this author , Peter L. ChoykePeter L. Choyke More articles by this author , Baris TurkbeyBaris Turkbey More articles by this author , Brad WoodBrad Wood Financial interest and/or other relationship with National Institutes of Health and Philips Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. More articles by this author , and Peter A. PintoPeter A. Pinto More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Active surveillance is an established option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy may better identify patients for active surveillance compared to systematic 12-core biopsy due to improved risk stratification. To our knowledge the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in following men on active surveillance with visible lesions is unknown. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy to monitor men on active surveillance. Materials and Methods: This retrospective review included men from 2007 to 2015 with prostate cancer on active surveillance in whom magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were monitored by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy. Progression was defined by ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group 1 to 2 and ISUP grade group 2 to 3. Significance was considered at p ≤0.05. Results: A total of 166 patients on active surveillance with 2 or more fusion guided biopsies were included in analysis. Mean followup was 25.5 months. Of the patients 29.5% had pathological progression. Targeted biopsy alone identified 44.9% of patients who progressed compared to 30.6% identified by systematic 12-core biopsy alone (p = 0.03). Fusion guided biopsy detected 26% more cases of pathological progression on surveillance biopsy compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. Progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was the sole predictor of pathological progression at surveillance biopsy (p = 0.013). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression in the entire cohort had 81% negative predictive value, 35% positive predictive value, 77.6% sensitivity and 40.5% specificity in detecting pathological progression. Conclusions: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression predicts the risk of pathological progression. Patients with stable multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings have a low rate of progression. Incorporating fusion guided biopsy in active surveillance nearly doubled our detection of pathological progression compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. References 1 : Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med2012; 157: 120. Google Scholar 2 : Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol2008; 54: 371. Google Scholar 3 : Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health. J Urol2015; 194: 626. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2015; 33: 272. Google Scholar 5 : Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 2185. Google Scholar 6 : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol2013; 64: 713. Google Scholar 7 : Optimizing patient population for MP-MRI and fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection. Curr Urol Rep2015; 16: 521. Google Scholar 8 : Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol2011; 186: 1818. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol2013; 189: 86. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA2015; 313: 390. Google Scholar 11 : Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol2015; 33: 202.e201. Google Scholar 12 : Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep2016; 17: 32. Google Scholar 13 : Prostate cancer diagnosis on repeat magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of benign lesions: recommendations for repeat sampling. J Urol2016; 196: 62. Link, Google Scholar 14 : 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 Imaging2015; 41: 220. Google Scholar 15 : Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer2013; 119: 3359. Google Scholar 16 : Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 190: 1721. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology2015; 277: 741. Google Scholar 18 : Comparison of MR-US fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int2015; 115: 772. Google Scholar 19 : Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value. J Urol2016; 195: 1421. Link, Google Scholar 20 : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 3669. Google Scholar 21 : Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol2013; 190: 1218. Link, Google Scholar 22 : Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol2012; 188: 1157. Link, Google Scholar 23 : 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 Endourol2015; 29: 1115. Google Scholar 24 : Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. J Urol2013; 190: 2033. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?. J Urol2014; 192: 385. Link, Google Scholar 26 : Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 2810. Google Scholar 27 : Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int2014; 114: E99. Google Scholar 28 : Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer2008; 112: 2664. Google Scholar 29 : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol2015; 67: 619. Google Scholar 30 : Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol2015; 67: 627. Google Scholar © 2017 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byDoan P, Scheltema M, Amin A, Shnier R, Geboers B, Gondoputro W, Moses D, van Leeuwen P, Haynes A, Matthews J, Brenner P, O’Neill G, Yuen C, Delprado W, Stricker P and Thompson J (2022) Final Analysis of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 5, (1028-1036), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022.Liss M, Newcomb L, Zheng Y, Garcia M, Filson C, Boyer H, Brooks J, Carroll P, Cooperberg M, Ellis W, Gleave M, Martin F, Morgan T, Nelson P, Wagner A, Thompson I and Lin D (2020) Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 4, (701-706), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020.Zhou S, Chang E, Patankar A, Huang J, Marks L and Natarajan S (2019) Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Freehand versus 3-Dimensional Template Mapping Biopsy Using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Device in Biopsy Naïve MenJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 4, (699-705), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020.Ginsburg K, Arcot R, Qi J, Linsell S, Kaye D, George A and Cher M (2019) Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging with or without Biopsy Impacts Decision Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 201, NO. 5, (923-928), Online publication date: 1-May-2019.Van Kuiken M, Blackwell R, Bisanz B, Joyce C, Yacoub J, Shea S, Goldberg A, Quek M, Flanigan R and Gupta G (2018) Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Specific Antigen Density and PI-RADS™ Score in Predicting Up Staging in Men on Active SurveillanceUrology Practice, VOL. 6, NO. 2, (117-122), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019.Bloom J, Hale G, Gold S, Rayn K, Smith C, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Valera V, Wood B, Merino M, Choyke P, Parnes H, Turkbey B and Pinto P (2018) Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 201, NO. 1, (84-90), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2019.Rosenkrantz A, Hemingway J, Hughes D, Duszak R, Allen B and Weinreb J (2018) Evolving Use of Prebiopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Medicare PopulationJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 1, (89-94), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2018.Chang E, Jones T, Natarajan S, Sharma D, Simopoulos D, Margolis D, Huang J, Dorey F and Marks L (2017) Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 1, (98-105), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018. (2017) Reply by AuthorsJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 3, (710-711), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017.Taneja S (2016) Re: Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy during Prostate Cancer Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 197, NO. 2, (400-401), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2017. Volume 197Issue 3 Part 1March 2017Page: 640-646 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordswatchful waitingprostatic neoplasmsmagnetic resonance imagingbiopsyultrasonographyMetricsAuthor Information Thomas P. Frye More articles by this author Arvin K. George More articles by this author Amichai Kilchevsky More articles by this author Mahir Maruf More articles by this author M. Minhaj Siddiqui More articles by this author Michael Kongnyuy More articles by this author Akhil Muthigi More articles by this author Hui Han More articles by this author Howard L. Parnes More articles by this author Maria Merino More articles by this author Peter L. Choyke More articles by this author Baris Turkbey More articles by this author Brad Wood Financial interest and/or other relationship with National Institutes of Health and Philips Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. More articles by this author Peter A. Pinto More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...