scholarly journals The utility of prostate MRI within active surveillance: description of the evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Dominique ◽  
Wayne G. Brisbane ◽  
Robert E. Reiter
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Multiparametric Mri ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Active Monitoring ◽  
Initial Biopsy ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract Purpose We present an overview of the literature regarding the use of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Methods Both MEDLINE® and Cochrane Library were queried up to May 2020 for studies of men on active surveillance with MRI and later confirmatory biopsy. The terms studied were ‘prostate cancer’ as the anchor followed by two of the following: active surveillance, surveillance, active monitoring, MRI, NMR, magnetic resonance imaging,  MRI, and multiparametric MRI. Studies were excluded if pathologic reclassification (GG1 →  ≥ GG2) and PI-RADS or equivalent was not reported. Results Within active surveillance, baseline MRI is effective for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer and thus associated with fewer reclassification events. A positive initial MRI (≥ PI-RADS 3) with GG1 identified at biopsy has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35–40% for reclassification by 3 years. MRI possessed a stronger negative predictive value, with a negative MRI (≤ PI-RADS 2) yielding a negative predictive value of up to 85% at 3 years. Surveillance MRI, obtained after initial biopsy, yielded a PPV of 11–65% and NPV of 85–95% for reclassification. Conclusion MRI is useful for initial risk stratification of prostate cancer in men on active surveillance, especially if MRI is negative when imaging is obtained during surveillance. While useful, MRI cannot replace biopsy and further research is necessary to fully integrate MRI into active surveillance.

scholarly journals 1.5-Tesla Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-48
Author(s):  
Cristian Popita ◽  
Anca Raluca Popita ◽  
Adela Sitar-Taut ◽  
Bogdan Petrut ◽  
Bogdan Fetica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Background and aims. Multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is the main imaging modality used for prostate cancer detection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mp-MRI at 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.Methods. In this ethical board approved prospective study, 39 patients with suspected prostate cancer were included. Patients with a history of positive prostate biopsy and patients treated for prostate cancer were excluded. All patients were examined at 1.5-T MRI, before standard transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy.Results. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for mp-MRI were 100%, 73.68%, 80% and 100%, respectively.Conclusion. Our results showed that 1.5 T mp-MRI has a high sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and high negative predictive value in order to rule out significant disease.

scholarly journals Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Klotz ◽  
Giovanni Lughezzani ◽  
Davide Maffei ◽  
Andrea Sanchez ◽  
Jose Gregorio Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Software Fusion

Introduction: High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Methods: We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (PI-RADS >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (PRIMUS >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2. Results: Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites. Conclusions: In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

Latest Evidence on the Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 925-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Stefano Manno ◽  
Giorgio I. Russo ◽  
Sebastiano Cimino ◽  
Salvatore Privitera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) has become a very useful tool in the management of PCa. Particularly, there is a great interest in using mpMRI for men on Active Surveillance (AS) for low risk PCa. The aim of this systematic review was to critically review the latest literature concerning the role of mpMRI in this clinical setting, underlying current strengths and weakness. Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive literature research for English-language original and review articles was carried out using the National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed database with the aim to identify studies pertaining to mpMRI for AS in low risk PCa patients. The following search terms were used: active surveillance, prostate cancer and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Evidence Synthesis: Data from 28 recent original studies and reviews were reviewed. We only considered studies on the use of mpMRI in selecting AS patients and during AS follow-up, in order to solve two important questions: -Can mpMRI have a role in improving the detection of clinically significant disease, better selecting AS patients? -Can mpMRI identify the progression of disease and, consequently, be used during AS follow-up? Conclusions: mpMRI is useful to better select the ideal candidates to AS and to monitor them during follow-up. However, despite many advantages, there are yet important limitations to detect all clinically significant PCa and to better define mpMRI-radiological progression during AS. Further larger prospective studies are needed to definitively solve these important problems.

scholarly journals Primary Circulating Prostate Cells Are Not Detected in Men with Low Grade Small Volume Prostate Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel P. Murray ◽  
Eduardo Reyes ◽  
Cynthia Fuentealba ◽  
Nelson Orellana ◽  
Omar Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Small Volume ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Prostate Cells ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Initial Biopsy ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
A Prospective Study

Objective. To determine if primary circulating prostate cells (CPCs) are found in all men with prostate cancer.Methods and Patients. A prospective study, to analyze all men with an elevated PSA between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/mL undergoing initial biopsy. Primary CPCs were obtained by differential gel centrifugation and detected using standard immunocytochemistry using anti-PSA; positive samples underwent a second process with anti-P504S. A malignant primary CPC was defined as PSA (+) P504S (+) and a test positive if 1 cell/4 mL was detected. Biopsy results were registered as cancer/no-cancer, number of cores positive, and percent infiltration of the cores.Results. 328/1123 (29.2%) of the study population had prostate cancer diagnosed on initial biopsy, and 42/328 (12.8%) were negative for primary CPCs. CPC negative men were significantly older, and had lower PSA levels, lower Gleason scores, and fewer positive cores and with infiltration by the cancer. 38/42 (91%) of CPC negative men complied with the criteria for active surveillance in comparison with 34/286 (12%) of CPC positive men.Conclusions. Using primary CPC detection as a sequential test to select men with an elevated PSA for biopsy, the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer is minimal when the patient is primary CPC negative; less than 0.5% of all primary CPC negative men had a clinically significant prostate cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document