Impact of prebiopsy MRI on prostate cancer staging: Results from the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry

The aim of this study is to evaluate the 2015 introduction of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (MRI‐P) as the standard of care for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) by the Norwegian public health care authorities. There were three specific objectives of this study: first, to evaluate the consequences of using different TNM manuals for clinical T‐staging (cT‐staging) in a national setting; second, to determine if the data reveals that MRI‐P based cT‐staging is superior to digital rectal examination (DRE)‐based cT‐staging compared with pathological T‐stage (pT‐stage) post radical prostatectomy; and third, to assess whether treatment allocations have changed over time.

[1]  Scott C. Johnson,et al.  The prognostic value of digital rectal exam for the existence of advanced pathologic features after prostatectomy , 2021, The Prostate.

[2]  J. Eastham,et al.  The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Primary Staging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature. , 2020, European urology oncology.

[3]  J. Witjes,et al.  Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. , 2020, Urology.

[4]  C. Beisland,et al.  Assessing Extraprostatic Extension with Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate: Mehralivand Extraprostatic Extension Grade or Extraprostatic Extension Likert Scale? , 2020, Radiology. Imaging cancer.

[5]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Imaging and T Category for Prostate Cancer in the 8th Edition of the Union for International Cancer Control TNM Classification. , 2020, European urology oncology.

[6]  K. Haustermans,et al.  Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Prostate Cancer Staging and European Association of Urology Risk Classification. , 2019, Urology.

[7]  P. Choyke,et al.  Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer , 2018, The Journal of urology.

[8]  M. Amin,et al.  Updates in the Eighth Edition of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging Classification for Urologic Cancers. , 2018, European Urology.

[9]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  L. Diep,et al.  A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient , 2018, World Journal of Urology.

[11]  I. Baldi,et al.  High Agreement and High Prevalence: The Paradox of Cohen’s Kappa , 2017, The open nursing journal.

[12]  Martin Biermann,et al.  Optimising preoperative risk stratification tools for prostate cancer using mpMRI , 2017, European Radiology.

[13]  J. McKenney,et al.  Prostate cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. , 2017, European urology.

[15]  C. Compton,et al.  The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population‐based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[17]  Daniel Klein.  KAPPAETC: Stata module to evaluate interrater agreement , 2017 .

[18]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[20]  A. Svindland,et al.  Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for detecting uni- and bilateral extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[21]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Bjørn Møller,et al.  Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[23]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[24]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  C. Balch,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed , 2002 .

[26]  C. Compton,et al.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , 2002, Springer New York.

[27]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Biochemical Outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam Radiation Therapy, or interstitial Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer , 1998 .