Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVE To assess the association between magnetic resonance (MR) appearance of prostate cancer on a baseline multiparametric prostate (MP) MR imaging (MRI) and biopsy outcome in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance (AS). MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-six consecutive men (mean age, 67.8 years) who had a baseline MP MRI within 1 year of AS enrollment were included in the study. MP MRI results were analyzed to identify men with MR-invisible tumor defined as no signal abnormality on T2-weighted images, no focal restricted diffusion, and no perfusion abnormality on dynamic contrast-enhanced images. Patients with (n = 84) or without (n = 12) MR-visible tumor were compared and the impact of MR-invisibility of tumor on the risk of adverse biopsy pathology based on the Epstein criteria was investigated with a median follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS Adverse biopsy pathology occurred in 36.5% (35 of 96) of patients. There was no significant difference in the fulfillment of AS criteria at enrollment, prostate-specific antigen level or density, prostate volume, and number of biopsies (total or after MRI) between the 2 groups of patients. A total of 8.3% (1 of 12) of men with MR-invisible tumor had adverse biopsy pathology as compared with 40.5% (34 of 84) of men with MR-visible tumors. The MR-invisibility of tumor was associated with a lower risk of adverse biopsy pathology (crude relative risk = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-1.25; prostate-specific antigen density-adjusted relative risk = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.32). CONCLUSION The MR-invisibility of tumor on MP MRI could be of prognostic significance in monitoring men in AS with potential benefit of tailoring the frequency of surveillance biopsies and reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies.

[1]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[2]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[3]  M. Roobol,et al.  Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. , 2012, European urology.

[4]  A. Partin,et al.  African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience , 2011 .

[6]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla , 2012, BJU international.

[7]  B. Trock,et al.  Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Koon Ho Rha,et al.  Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. , 2013, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[9]  Kazutaka Saito,et al.  High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[10]  M. Kattan,et al.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.

[11]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance: oncologic outcome , 2013, Current opinion in urology.

[12]  A. Partin,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low‐risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance , 2013, BJU international.

[13]  M. Gleave,et al.  The ability of prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume , 2012, BJU international.

[14]  Emilie Niaf,et al.  Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study , 2013, European Radiology.

[15]  H. Hricak,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[16]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[17]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[18]  H Ballentine Carter,et al.  Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[19]  L. Salomon,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme , 2011, BJU international.

[20]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. , 2012, European urology.

[21]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. , 2012, European urology.

[22]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2013, European urology.