Ces radiol. 2019, 73(4):220-225 | DOI: 10.55095/CesRadiol2019/032

The role of the MR in active surveillance of prostate cancerReview article

Pavla Hanzlíková
Ústav zobrazovacích metod OU, Ostrava

The aim of the article is to present the current state of the active monitoring in group of patiens with prostate cancer, which is assessed as low risk. Indicative criteria for patient enrollment are presented. The possible benefits of MR in the development of low-risk to moderate-to-high-risk tumors that require active treatment are discussed in detail. The indications of active monitoring are discussed, prognostic factors are also presented. The contribution of MR examination in active surveillance and the contribution of MR examination to increase detection of carcinoma progression due to MR targeted biopsy is presented.
The limitations of the examination are analyzed, especially the sources of negative or positive results. The article also includes recommendations - guidelines of the European and American Urological Association regarding the inclusion of MRI in the active surveillance plan.

Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer, active surveillance, guidelines

Accepted: November 15, 2019; Published: December 1, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hanzlíková P. The role of the MR in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Ces radiol. 2019;73(4):220-225. doi: 10.55095/CesRadiol2019/032.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH, et al. Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 2016; 70(5): 862-874. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.043 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large activesurveillance kohort of patiens with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(3): 272-277. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(15): 1415-1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(10): 932-942. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observationfor localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(3): 203-213. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer - 29-YearFollow-up. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(24): 2319-2329. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807801 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H. Radical Surgery or Watchful Waiting in Prostate Cancer Reply. N Engl J Med 2019; 380(11): 1084. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1900410 Go to original source...
    8. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Epstein JI, et al. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: use, outcomes, imaging, and diagnostic tools. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016; 35: e235-245. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_159244 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Witherspoon L, Breau RH, Lavallée LT. Evidence-based approach to aktive surveillance of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2019. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02662-5 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options. J Urol 2018; 199(4): 990-997. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.002 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71(4): 618-629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in aktive surveillance: a critical review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22(1): 5-15. doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0077-2 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, BroderickGA. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-974. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016; 14(5): 509-519. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the PROMIS study - Authors' reply. Lancet 2017; 390(10092): 362. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31595-7 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76(3): 340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Gaur S, Harmon S, Rosenblum L, et al. Can apparent diffusion coefficient values assist PI-RADS version 2 DWI scoring? A Correlation Study Usingthe PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems. Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211(1): W33-W41. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. 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(2): 250-266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance paging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on aktive surveillance forprostate cancer. Urology 2015; 85(2): 423-428. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.060 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Recabal P, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, Lee D, et al. The efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in risk classification for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2016; 196(2): 374-381. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.084 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Bonekamp D, Freitag MT, Wolf MB, Alt CD, et al. Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patiens for aktive surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19: 283. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on aktive surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017; 120(4): 511-519. doi: 10.1111/bju.13836 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, et al. Magnetic resonance paging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patiens eligible for aktive surveillance hen the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int 2011; 108(4): 513-517. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Holtz J, Silverman RK, et al. Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for aktive surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20(3): 323-327. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2017.20 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Abdi H, Zargar H, Goldenberg SL, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patiens with prior negative biopsy esults. UrolOncol 2015; 33(4): 165.e161-167. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.01.004 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval paging follow-up. DiagnIntervRadiol 2014; 20(4): 293-298. doi: 10.5152/dir.2014.13319 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on aktive surveillance for low-risk prostatec ancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2018; 122(6): 946-958. doi: 10.1111/bju.14358 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    29. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignifican tprostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185(1): 121-125. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.082 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et. al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2019. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content