Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
33
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY-BLACKWELL
Citação
BJU INTERNATIONAL, v.119, n.4, p.535-542, 2017
Resumo
Objective To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and transrectal ultrasonography guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) with visual estimation in early risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). Patients and Methods Patients with low-risk, low-grade, localised prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled and submitted to a 3-T 16-channel cardiac surface coil mpMRI of the prostate and confirmatory biopsy (CBx), which included a standard biopsy (SBx) and visual estimation-guided TRUS-Bx. Cancersuspicious regions were defined using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores. Reclassification occurred if CBx confirmed the presence of a Gleason score >= 7, greater than three positive fragments, or >= 50% involvement of any core. The performance of mpMRI for the prediction of CBx results was assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to study relationships between age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density (PSAD), number of positive cores in the initial biopsy, and mpMRI grade on CBx reclassification. Our report is consistent with the Standards of Reporting for MRItargeted Biopsy Studies (START) guidelines. Results In all, 105 patients were available for analysis in the study. From this cohort, 42 (40%) had PI-RADS 1, 2, or 3 lesions and 63 (60%) had only grade 4 or 5 lesions. Overall, 87 patients underwent visual estimation TRUS-Bx. Reclassification among patients with PI-RADS 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 0%, 23.1%, 9.1%, 74.5%, and 100%, respectively. Overall, mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for disease reclassification were 92.5%, 76%, 81%, and 90.5%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, only PSAD and mpMRI remained significant for reclassification (P < 0.05). In the crosstabulation, SBx would have missed 15 significant cases detected by targeted biopsy, but SBx did detect five cases of significant cancer not detected by targeted biopsy alone. Conclusion Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is a significant tool for predicting cancer severity reclassification on CBx among AS candidates. The reclassification rate on CBx is particularly high in the group of patients who have PI-RADS grades 4 or 5 lesions. Despite the usefulness of visual-guided biopsy, it still remains highly recommended to retrieve standard fragments during CBx in order to avoid missing significant tumours.
Palavras-chave
prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance, targeted prostate biopsy, transrectal ultrasound targeted biopsy, active surveillance, visual estimation prostatic targeted biopsy
Referências
- Berglund RK, 2008, J UROLOGY, V180, P1964, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.051
- Bonekamp D, 2013, J COMPUT ASSIST TOMO, V37, P948, DOI 10.1097/RCT.0b013e31829ae20a
- Conti SL, 2009, J UROLOGY, V181, P1628, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.107
- Dall'Era MA, 2012, EUR UROL, V62, P976, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072
- EPSTEIN JI, 1994, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V271, P368, DOI 10.1001/jama.271.5.368
- Fradet V, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V256, P176, DOI 10.1148/radiol.10091147
- Guo R, 2015, PROSTATE CANCER P D, V18, P221, DOI 10.1038/pcan.2015.20
- Hamoen EHJ, 2015, EUR UROL, V67, P1112, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033
- Hoeks CMA, 2014, INVEST RADIOL, V49, P165, DOI 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000008
- Hu JC, 2014, J UROLOGY, V192, P385, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005
- Klotz L, 2010, J CLIN ONCOL, V28, P126, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180
- Lee DH, 2013, J UROLOGY, V190, P1213, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.127
- Lee Michael C, 2010, Eur Urol, V58, P90, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.025
- Margel D, 2012, J UROLOGY, V187, P1247, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
- Marliere F, 2014, WORLD J UROL, V32, P951, DOI 10.1007/s00345-014-1314-5
- Moore CM, 2013, EUR UROL, V64, P544, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
- Park BH, 2014, BJU INT, V113, P864, DOI 10.1111/bju.12423
- Schoots IG, 2015, EUR UROL, V67, P627, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050
- Tosoian JJ, 2011, J CLIN ONCOL, V29, P2185, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112
- Turkbey B, 2013, RADIOLOGY, V268, P144, DOI 10.1148/radiol.13121325
- van den Bergh RCN, 2014, EUR UROL, V65, P1023, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.027
- van den Bergh RCN, 2009, EUR UROL, V55, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007
- Vasarainen H, 2013, SCAND J UROL, V47, P456, DOI 10.3109/21681805.2013.765910
- Villeirs GM, 2011, EUR J RADIOL, V77, P340, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.08.007
- Wysock JS, 2014, EUR UROL, V66, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048