Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study.
Aged
Disease Progression
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Neoplasm Grading
Predictive Value of Tests
Prostate-Specific Antigen
/ blood
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ blood
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Watchful Waiting
Assessment
Early diagnosis
Imaging-guided biopsy
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
risk
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
02
02
2020
accepted:
29
05
2020
revised:
31
03
2020
pubmed:
28
6
2020
medline:
25
3
2021
entrez:
28
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the ability of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) of the prostate to exclude prostate cancer (PCa) progression during monitoring patients on active surveillance (AS). One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients on AS with mp-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI) at 3T were initially enrolled. Fifty-five received follow-up mp-MRI after a minimum interval of 12 months and subsequent targeted MR/US fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) plus concurrent systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-GB) biopsy as reference standard. Primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the follow-up mp-MRI to exclude histopathologic tumor progression using PRECISE recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, Gleason score (GS) upgrades, and comparison of biopsy method. Of 55 patients, 29 (53%) had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. All 29 patients showed a tumor progression on follow-up mp-MRI. Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) displayed signs of tumor progression, but had stable GS on re-biopsy. None of the 11 patients (20%) without signs of progression on follow-up mp-MRI had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. The NPV was 100%, PPV was 66%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity 42%. FUS-GB resulted in GS upgrade significantly more often (n = 28; 51%) compared with TRUS-GB (n = 12; 22%; p < 0.001). (Follow-up) Mp-MRI can reliably exclude PCa progression in patients on AS. Standard serial re-biopsies might be waived if follow-up mp-MRIs are stable. Over 60% of patients with signs of tumor progression on mp-MRI during AS had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. Targeted re-biopsies should be performed if cancer progression or higher-grade PCa is suspected on mp-MRI. • None of the patients with unsuspicious mp-MRI had a GS upgrade in re-biopsy and mp-MRI might replace serial biopsies in these cases • More than 60% of patients with mp-MRI signs of tumor progression had subsequent Gleason score (GS) upgrades • Targeted re-biopsies should be performed in case of higher GS cancer suspicion on mp-MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32591887
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06997-1
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-06997-1
pmc: PMC7553894
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6042-6051Références
Urol Clin North Am. 2014 May;41(2):299-313
pubmed: 24725491
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):630-642
pubmed: 27591931
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):300-309
pubmed: 30017404
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1249-53
pubmed: 26699628
JAMA. 1994 Feb 2;271(5):368-74
pubmed: 7506797
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
pubmed: 16096414
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):627-36
pubmed: 25511988
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jan;206(1):92-9
pubmed: 26700339
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):632-639
pubmed: 27639713
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):648-655
pubmed: 27349615
Urology. 2019 Aug;130:99-105
pubmed: 30940480
BJU Int. 2018 May;121(5):737-744
pubmed: 29247473
Rofo. 2018 May;190(5):419-426
pubmed: 28934811
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Urology. 2018 Jun;116:137-143
pubmed: 29653121
Eur Urol. 2017 Feb;71(2):174-180
pubmed: 27236496
J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):990-997
pubmed: 29331546
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):794-800
pubmed: 29645347
Urol Oncol. 2015 May;33(5):202.e1-202.e7
pubmed: 25754621
J Urol. 2016 May;195(5):1421-1427
pubmed: 26674305
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):846-853
pubmed: 26810346
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):575-582
pubmed: 28373135
Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):954-960
pubmed: 27329565
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74
pubmed: 9749478
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):275-281
pubmed: 27595378
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2020 Mar;77(3):311-317
pubmed: 31708295
Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):144-52
pubmed: 23468576
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Jan;14(1):19-30
pubmed: 26733552