Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance.
Active surveillance
Fusion biopsy
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation
Prostate cancer
Journal
European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
26
06
2020
revised:
07
09
2020
accepted:
17
09
2020
entrez:
19
4
2021
pubmed:
20
4
2021
medline:
23
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question. To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS. From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6). All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI. A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI. In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease. For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ability of serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to capture pathologic progression during active surveillance (AS) remains in question.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether changes in MRI are associated with pathologic progression for patients on AS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
From July 2007 through January 2020, we identified all patients evaluated for AS at our institution. Following confirmatory biopsy, a total of 391 patients who underwent surveillance MRI and biopsy at least once were identified (median follow-up of 35.6 mo, interquartile range 19.7-60.6).
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
All MRI intervals were scored using the "Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation" (PRECISE) criteria, with PRECISE scores =4 considered a positive change in MRI. A generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression analysis was conducted for all intervals with a PRECISE score of <4 to determine the predictors of Gleason grade group (GG) progression despite stable MRI.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
A total of 621 MRI intervals were scored by PRECISE and validated by biopsy. The negative predictive value of stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) was greatest for detecting GG1 to?=?GG3 disease (0.94 [0.91-0.97]). If 2-yr surveillance biopsy were performed exclusively for a positive change in MRI, 3.7% (4/109) of avoided biopsies would have resulted in missed progression from GG1 to?=?GG3 disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (odds ratio 1.95 [1.17-3.25], p?=? 0.01) was a risk factor for progression from GG1 to =GG3 disease despite stable MRI.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with GG1 disease and stable MRI (PRECISE score <4) on surveillance, grade progression to?=?GG3 disease is not common. In patients with grade progression detected on biopsy despite stable MRI, elevated PSA density appeared to be a risk factor for progression to?=?GG3 disease.
PATIENT SUMMARY
For patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, the risk of progressing to grade group 3 disease is low with a stable magnetic resonance image (MRI) after 2?yr. Having higher prostate-specific antigen density increases the risk of progression, despite having a stable MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33867045
pii: S2588-9311(20)30144-9
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.09.004
pmc: PMC9310665
mid: NIHMS1817406
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227-234Subventions
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z01 BC011081
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : ZID BC011242
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z01 BC010655
Pays : United States
Organisme : CCR NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261200800001C
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : ZIA BC012062
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261200800001E
Pays : United States
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : ZIE SC000853
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911019
pubmed: 31509206
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):124-132
pubmed: 32232921
Health Serv Res. 2018 Apr;53(2):859-878
pubmed: 28560732
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
J Urol. 2020 Jul;204(1):24-32
pubmed: 31967522
Urol Oncol. 2015 May;33(5):202.e1-202.e7
pubmed: 25754621
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Jan;7(1):102-110
pubmed: 30878348
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):640-646
pubmed: 27613356
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):479-505
pubmed: 31085757
Eur Urol. 2018 Jul;74(1):48-54
pubmed: 29566957
Eur Radiol. 2020 Nov;30(11):6042-6051
pubmed: 32591887
J Urol. 2019 Jan;201(1):84-90
pubmed: 30577395
J Urol. 2020 Apr;203(4):706-712
pubmed: 31642740
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):648-655
pubmed: 27349615
Biometrics. 2001 Mar;57(1):120-5
pubmed: 11252586
Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr;30(4):2082-2090
pubmed: 31844959
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1326-1335
pubmed: 29603833
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Mar;2(2):135-140
pubmed: 31017088
Biometrics. 2017 Sep;73(3):822-834
pubmed: 28182832
Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Apr;67:50-58
pubmed: 31899283
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):501-507
pubmed: 31874726
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Mar;214(3):574-578
pubmed: 31913068
JAMA Oncol. 2018 May 1;4(5):678-685
pubmed: 29470570
Radiology. 2019 Mar;290(3):709-719
pubmed: 30667329
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):443-451
pubmed: 32360049
Eur Urol. 2020 Mar;77(3):311-317
pubmed: 31708295