Advertisement

Integration and Diagnostic Accuracy of 3T Nonendorectal coil Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Context of Active Surveillance

      Objective

      To evaluate the integration of 3T nonendorectal coil multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 2 high-volume practices that routinely use mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance.

      Materials and Methods

      This was an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, and dual-institution retrospective cohort study. Subjects undergoing 3T mpMRI without endorectal coil at either study institution over a 13-month period (August 1, 2015-August 31, 2016) were selected based on predefined criteria: clinical T1/T2 Gleason 6 prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/mL, ≥40 years old, mpMRI within 2 years of prostate biopsy, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 score assigned. Subjects surveilled for Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was detection of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer on magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy, standard biopsy, or prostatectomy within 6 months following mpMRI. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated.

      Results

      A total of 286 subjects (N = 193 from institution 1, N = 93 from institution 2) met the criteria. Most (87% [90 of 104]) with maximum PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-2 did not receive immediate biopsy or treatment and remained on active surveillance. Incidence and PPVs for PI-RADS v2 scores of ≥3 were the following: PI-RADS 3 (n = 57 [20%], PPV 21% [6 of 29]), PI-RADS 4 (n = 96 [34%], PPV 51% [39 of 77]), and PI-RADS 5 (n = 29 [13%], PPV 71% [20 of 28]). No Gleason ≥4 + 3 prostate cancer was identified for PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-3 (0 of 43 with histology). Following mpMRI and subsequent biopsy, 21% (61 of 286) of subjects were removed from active surveillance and underwent definitive therapy.

      Conclusion

      The 3T nonendorectal coil mpMRI has been integrated into the care of patients on active surveillance and effectively stratifies risk of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer in this population.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • Bosaily A.E.
        • Brown L.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Filson C.P.
        • Natarajan S.
        • Margolis D.J.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 884-892
        • Chung M.S.
        • Lee S.H.
        Current status of active surveillance in prostate cancer. Investigative and clinical urology.
        Investigative & Clinical Urology. 2016; 57: 14-20
        • Frye T.P.
        • George A.K.
        • Kilchevsky A.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 640-646
        • Nassiri N.
        • Margolis D.J.
        • Natarajan S.
        • et al.
        Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low- vs. intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 632-639
        • Womble P.R.
        • Montie J.E.
        • Ye Z.
        • et al.
        Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 44-50
        • Weinreb J.C.
        • Barentsz J.O.
        • Choyke P.L.
        • et al.
        PI-RADS Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
        • Recabal P.
        • Assel M.
        • Sjoberg D.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: 374-381
        • Alberts A.R.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Drost F.H.
        • et al.
        Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13836
        • Nougaret S.
        • Robertson N.
        • Golia Pernicka J.
        • et al.
        The performance of PI-RADS v2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer.
        Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017; 42: 1968-1974
        • Nahar B.
        • Katims A.
        • Panizzutti Barboza M.
        • et al.
        Reclassification rates of patients eligible for active surveillance after the addition of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy: an analysis of 7 widely used eligibility criteria.
        Urology. 2017; (in press)
        • Tran G.N.
        • Leapman M.S.
        • Nguyen H.G.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 275-281
        • Moore C.M.
        • Giganti F.
        • Albertsen P.
        • et al.
        Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations—a report of a European School of Oncology Task Force.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 648-655