Why does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging miss clinically significant prostate cancer? A systematic review of the literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e2617
Author(s):  
J. Norris ◽  
A. Kirkham ◽  
A. Freeman ◽  
M. Emberton
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 925-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Stefano Manno ◽  
Giorgio I. Russo ◽  
Sebastiano Cimino ◽  
Salvatore Privitera ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document