Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance: Role of Anatomic MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopic Imaging
- 1 July 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 256 (1), 176-183
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091147
Abstract
Purpose To determine the role that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings obtained at the time of diagnosis play in the progression of disease in patients whose prostate cancer is being managed with active surveillance and to compare the role of these findings with the role of transrectal ultrasonography (US) findings. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients whose records were to be entered into the research database. All patients who had prostate cancer managed with active surveillance and who had undergone both MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate and transrectal US at time of diagnosis were identified. Two urologists blinded to the clinical outcome in these patients independently reviewed and dichotomized the MR imaging report and the MR spectroscopic imaging report as normal or suggestive of malignancy. One experienced urologist performed all US examinations that were then dichotomized similarly. Uni- and multivariate (with use of standard clinical variables) Cox models were fitted to assess time to cancer progression, defined as Gleason score upgrading, prostate-specific antigen velocity of more than 0.75 (μg L−1)/y, or initiation of treatment more than 6 months after diagnosis. Results The final cohort included 114 patients with a median follow-up of 59 months. Patients with a lesion that was suggestive of cancer at MR imaging had a greater risk of the Gleason score being upgraded at subsequent biopsy (hazard ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 14.9) than did patients without such a lesion. Neither MR spectroscopic imaging nor transrectal US could be used to predict cancer progression. Conclusion Abnormal prostate MR imaging results suggestive of cancer may confer an increased risk of Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy. Although expensive, prostate MR imaging may help in counseling potential candidates about active surveillance. © RSNA, 2010Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Risk Assessment for Prostate Cancer Metastasis and Mortality at the Time of DiagnosisJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- Pathological Outcomes of Candidates for Active Surveillance of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, 2009
- Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low‐risk prostate cancerCancer, 2008
- Active surveillance for early‐stage prostate cancerCancer, 2008
- Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and futureCurrent Opinion in Urology, 2008
- How much does Gleason grade of follow‐up biopsy differ from that of initial biopsy in untreated, Gleason score 4–7, clinically localized prostate cancer?The Prostate, 2007
- The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysisBJU International, 2007
- Validity of prostate-specific antigen as a tumour marker in men with prostate cancer managed by watchful-waiting: correlation with findings at serial endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imagingBJU International, 2007
- DEDIFFERENTIATION OF PROSTATE CANCER GRADE WITH TIME IN MEN FOLLOWED EXPECTANTLY FOR STAGE T1C DISEASEJournal of Urology, 2001
- Improved solvent suppression and increased spatial excitation bandwidths for three-dimensional press CSI using phase-compensating spectral/spatial spin-echo pulsesJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 1997