Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

2020; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 204; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/ju.0000000000001088

1527-3792

Michael A. Liss, Lisa F. Newcomb, Yingye Zheng, Michael P. Garcia, Christopher P. Filson, Hilary Boyer, James D. Brooks, Peter R. Carroll, Matthew R. Cooperberg, William J. Ellis, Martin Gleave, Frances M. Martin, Todd M. Morgan, Peter S. Nelson, Andrew A. Wagner, Ian M. Thompson, Daniel W. Lin,

MRI in cancer diagnosis

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Oct 2020Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Michael A. Liss, Lisa F. Newcomb, Yingye Zheng, Michael P. Garcia, Christopher P. Filson, Hilary Boyer, James D. Brooks, Peter R. Carroll, Matthew R. Cooperberg, William J. Ellis, Martin E. Gleave, Frances M. Martin, Todd Morgan, Peter S. Nelson, Andrew A. Wagner, Ian M. Thompson, and Daniel W. Lin Michael A. LissMichael A. Liss *Correspondence: Department of Urology, UTHSCSA, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78229 telephone: 210-567-5676; FAX: 210-567-6868; E-mail Address: [email protected] University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas , Lisa F. NewcombLisa F. Newcomb Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington , Yingye ZhengYingye Zheng Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington , Michael P. GarciaMichael P. Garcia Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington , Christopher P. FilsonChristopher P. Filson Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia , Hilary BoyerHilary Boyer Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington , James D. BrooksJames D. Brooks Stanford University, Stanford, California , Peter R. CarrollPeter R. Carroll University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California , Matthew R. CooperbergMatthew R. Cooperberg University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California , William J. EllisWilliam J. Ellis Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington , Martin E. GleaveMartin E. Gleave University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada , Frances M. MartinFrances M. Martin Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia , Todd MorganTodd Morgan University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan , Peter S. NelsonPeter S. Nelson Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington , Andrew A. WagnerAndrew A. Wagner Beth Israel Deaconess, Boston, Massachusetts , Ian M. ThompsonIan M. Thompson University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas CHRISTUS Santa Rosa Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas , and Daniel W. LinDaniel W. Lin Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001088AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We investigated the ability of prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer in a standardized, multi-institutional active surveillance cohort. Materials and Methods: We evaluated men enrolled in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Gleason Grade Group less than 2 and who underwent biopsy within 12 months of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Our primary outcome was biopsy reclassification to Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS® score and clinical factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit with magnetic resonance imaging and clinical factors and used to perform receiver operating curve analyses. Results: There were 361 participants with 395 prostate magnetic resonance imaging studies with a median followup of 4.1 (IQR 2.0-7.6) years. Overall 108 (27%) biopsies showed reclassification. Defining positive magnetic resonance imaging as PI-RADS 3-5, the negative predictive value and positive predictive value for detecting Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater cancer was 83% (95% CI 76-90) and 31% (95% CI 26-37), respectively. PI-RADS was significantly associated with reclassification (PI-RADS 5 vs 1 and 2 OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.21-6.17, p=0.016) in a multivariable model but did not improve upon a model with only clinical factors (AUC 0.768 vs 0.762). In 194 fusion biopsies higher grade cancer was found in targeted cores in 21 (11%) instances, while 25 (13%) had higher grade cancer in the systematic cores. Conclusions: This study adds the largest cohort data to the body of literature for magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance, recommending systematic biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and the inclusion of systematic biopsy in patients with positive magnetic resonance imaging. References 1. : Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17: 479. Google Scholar 2. : Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 3251. Google Scholar 3. : EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618. Google Scholar 4. : 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415. Google Scholar 5. : Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 876. Google Scholar 6. : What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 250. Google Scholar 7. : Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2020; 203: 706. Link, Google Scholar 8. : MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767. Google Scholar 9. : Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815. Google Scholar 10. : 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. Link, Google Scholar 11. : Interreader variability of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in detecting and assessing prostate cancer lesions at prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20536. Crossref, Google Scholar 12. : 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. J Urol 2017; 197: 640. Link, Google Scholar 13. : Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 275. Google Scholar 14. : Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197: 632. Link, Google Scholar 15. : Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 300. Google Scholar 16. : Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. Urology 2010; 75: 407. Google Scholar 17. : Outcomes of active surveillance for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 2016; 195: 313. Link, Google Scholar 18. : Evaluating the four Kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the canary prostate active surveillance study. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 448. Google Scholar 19. : Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?. Radiology 2013; 268: 144. Google Scholar 20. : Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement. BJU Int 2019; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14707. Google Scholar 21. : Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2182. Google Scholar 22. : The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 174. Google Scholar 23. : Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?J Urol 2014; 192: 385. Link, Google Scholar 24. : Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390. Google Scholar 25. : Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5: 592. Google Scholar 26. : The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2011; 186: 465. Link, Google Scholar 27. : Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45: 579. Google Scholar 28. : An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines. Insights Imaging 2018; 9: 87. Google Scholar 29. : Restriction spectrum imaging improves MRI-based prostate cancer detection. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41: 946. Google Scholar 30. : Artificial intelligence at the intersection of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer. Diagn Interv Radiol 2019; 25: 183. Google Scholar Supported by Canary Foundation, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research. No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. Editor's Note: This article is the second of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 886 and 887. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byFilson C, Zhu K, Huang Y, Zheng Y, Newcomb L, Williams S, Brooks J, Carroll P, Dash A, Ellis W, Gleave M, Liss M, Martin F, McKenney J, Morgan T, Wagner A, Sokoll L, Sanda M, Chan D and Lin D (2022) Impact of Prostate Health Index Results for Prediction of Biopsy Grade Reclassification During Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 5, (1037-1045), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022.Eastham J, Auffenberg G, Barocas D, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis J, Eggener S, Horwitz E, Kane C, Kirkby E, Lin D, McBride S, Morgans A, Pierorazio P, Rodrigues G, Wong W and Boorjian S (2022) Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-UpJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 1, (19-25), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022.Magnani C, Hernandez-Boussard T, Baker L, Goldhaber-Fiebert J and Brooks J (2022) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Microsimulation of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Localized Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 1, (80-89), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022.Besasie B, Sunnapwar A, Gao F, Troyer D, Clarke G, White H, Fox P, Dale A, Wheeler A and Liss M (2021) Restriction Spectrum Imaging-Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Improve Prostate Cancer Imaging in Men on Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 206, NO. 1, (44-51), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021.Rajwa P, Pradere B, Mori K, Ploussard G, Leapman M and Shariat S (2021) Association of Negative Followup Biopsy and Reclassification during Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 6, (1559-1568), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021.Morash C (2021) Editorial CommentJournal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 5, (1358-1359), Online publication date: 1-May-2021.Wibmer A, Chaim J, Lakhman Y, Lefkowitz R, Nincevic J, Nikolovski I, Sala E, Gonen M, Carlsson S, Fine S, Zelefsky M, Scardino P, Hricak H and Vargas H (2020) Oncologic Outcomes after Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment: Associations with Pretreatment Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging FindingsJournal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 4, (1055-1062), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021.Taneja S (2020) Re: Randomized Study of Systematic Biopsy versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted and Systematic Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance (ASIST): 2-Year Postbiopsy Follow-UpJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 5, (1098-1099), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020.Smith J (2020) This Month in Adult UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 4, (635-636), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Volume 204Issue 4October 2020Page: 701-706Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatic neoplasmsmagnetic resonance imagingMetricsAuthor Information Michael A. Liss University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas *Correspondence: Department of Urology, UTHSCSA, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78229 telephone: 210-567-5676; FAX: 210-567-6868; E-mail Address: [email protected] Supported through the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program (PCRP) Physician Research Training Award. This work was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Prostate Cancer Research Program under Award No. W81XWH-15-1-0441. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense. More articles by this author Lisa F. Newcomb Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Yingye Zheng Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Michael P. Garcia Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Christopher P. Filson Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia More articles by this author Hilary Boyer Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author James D. Brooks Stanford University, Stanford, California More articles by this author Peter R. Carroll University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California More articles by this author Matthew R. Cooperberg University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California More articles by this author William J. Ellis Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Martin E. Gleave University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author Frances M. Martin Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia More articles by this author Todd Morgan University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan More articles by this author Peter S. Nelson Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Andrew A. Wagner Beth Israel Deaconess, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Ian M. Thompson University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas CHRISTUS Santa Rosa Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas More articles by this author Daniel W. Lin Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Expand All Supported by Canary Foundation, Institute for Prostate Cancer Research. No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. Editor's Note: This article is the second of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 886 and 887. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...