Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer

Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.13). 09/2011; 109(9):1315-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES To validate previously published nomograms for predicting insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) that incorporate clinical data, percentage of biopsy cores positive (%BC+) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI/MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) results. We also designed new nomogram models incorporating magnetic resonance results and clinical data without detailed biopsy data. Nomograms for predicting insignificant PCa can help physicians counsel patients with clinically low-risk disease who are choosing between active surveillance and definitive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 181 low-risk PCa patients (clinical stage T1c-T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score of 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery. For MRI and MRI/MRSI, the probability of insignificant PCa was recorded prospectively and independently by two radiologists on a scale from 0 (definitely insignificant) to 3 (definitely significant PCa). Insignificant PCa was defined on surgical pathology. There were four models incorporating MRI or MRI/MRSI and clinical data with and without %BC+ that were compared with a base clinical model without %BC and a more comprehensive clinical model with %BC+. Prediction accuracy was assessed using areas under receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS At pathology, 27% of patients had insignificant PCa, and the Gleason score was upgraded in 56.4% of patients. For both readers, all magnetic resonance models performed significantly better than the base clinical model (P <= 0.05 for all) and similarly to the more comprehensive clinical model. CONCLUSIONS Existing models incorporating magnetic resonance data, clinical data and %BC+ for predicting the probability of insignificant PCa were validated. All MR-inclusive models performed significantly better than the base clinical model.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess whether the proportion of men with clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) is higher among men randomized to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI)/biopsy vs. those randomized to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy.Methods In total, 1,140 patients with symptoms highly suggestive of PCa were enrolled and divided in 2 groups of 570 patients to follow 2 different diagnostic algorithms. Group A underwent a TRUS-guided random biopsy. Group B underwent an mp-MRI and a TRUS-guided targeted+random biopsy. The accuracy of mp-MRI in the diagnosis of PCa was calculated using prostatectomy as the standard of reference.ResultsIn group A, PCa was detected in 215 patients. The remaining 355 patients underwent an mp-MRI: the findings were positive in 208 and unremarkable in 147 patients. After the second random+targeted biopsy, PCa was detected in 186 of the 208 patients. In group B, 440 patients had positive findings on mp-MRI, and PCa was detected in 417 at first biopsy; 130 group B patients had unremarkable findings on both mp-MRI and biopsy. In the 130 group B patients with unremarkable findings on mp-MRI and biopsy, a PCa Gleason score of 6 or precancerous lesions were detected after saturation biopsy. mp-MRI showed an accuracy of 97% for the diagnosis of PCa.Conclusions The proportion of men with clinically significant PCa is higher among those randomized to mp-MRI/biopsy vs. those randomized to TRUS-guided biopsy; moreover, mp-MRI is a very reliable tool to identify patients to schedule in active surveillance.
    Urologic Oncology 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is great interest in using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. To systematically review evidence regarding the use of MRI in men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance. Ovid Medline and Embase databases were searched for active surveillance, prostate cancer, and MRI from inception until April 25, 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses process. Identified reports were critically appraised according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria. A lesion on MRI suspicious for prostate cancer (positive MRI) is seen in two-thirds of men otherwise suitable for active surveillance. A positive MRI makes the identification of clinically significant disease at repeat biopsy more likely, especially when biopsies are targeted to suspicious MRI lesions. Radical prostatectomy data show that positive MRI is more likely to be associated with upgrading (Gleason score >3+3) than a negative MRI (43% vs 27%). A positive MRI is not significantly more likely to be associated with upstaging at radical prostatectomy (>T2) than a negative MRI (10% vs 8%). Although MRI is of interest in the monitoring of men on active surveillance, robust data on the use of repeat MRI in active surveillance are lacking. Prospective studies with clear definitions of radiological significance and progression are needed before this approach can be adopted. MRI is useful for detection of clinically significant disease at initial assessment of men considering active surveillance. To use MRI as a monitoring tool in surveillance, it will be necessary to define both radiological significance and radiological progression. This review assesses evidence for the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. MRI at the start of surveillance can detect clinically significant disease in one-third to half of men. There are few data to assess the use of MRI as a monitoring tool during surveillance, so there is a need to define significant disease on MRI and significant changes over time. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    European Urology 11/2014; 67(4). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050 · 12.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To test the expandability of active surveillance (AS) to Gleason score 3+4 cancers by assessing the unfavorable disease risk in a large multi-institutional cohort. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective analysis including 2,323 patients with localized Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2013 from 6 academic centers. We analyzed the rates of biopsy downgrading/upgrading and advanced stage in the overall cohort by employing standardized AS criteria (using biopsy Gleason score 3+4). Results The final pathologic Gleason score was 3+3 = 6 in 8%, 3+4 = 7 in 67%, 4+3 = 7 in 20%, and 8 to 10 in 5% cases. The overall rate of unfavorable disease (upgrading or advanced stage or both) was 46%. In multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>10 ng/ml, PSA density (PSAD) >0.15 ng/ml/g, clinical stage >T1, and>2 positive cores were predictors of unfavorable disease. According to the AS criteria used, the risk of unfavorable disease ranged from 30% to 42%. In patients without any risk factor (PSA level≤10 ng/ml, PSAD ≤0.15 ng/ml/g, T1c, and≤2 positive cores), the unfavorable disease rate was 19%. The main limitations of this study are the retrospective design and nonstandardization of pathologic assessment between centers. Conclusions Approximately half of patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 cancer have unfavorable disease at final pathology. Nevertheless, expanding AS eligibility to these patients may be acceptable provided adherence to strict selection criteria leading to a<20% risk of unfavorable disease. Future tools for selection such as magnetic resonance imaging, early rebiopsy, and serum markers may be especially beneficial in this group of patients.
    Urologic Oncology 08/2014; 33(2). DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007 · 3.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014