Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose To determine whether multiparametric MRI could help predict the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer (PCA). Methods We retrospectively analyzed consecutive 623 patients with PCA who underwent multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy(RP). High-resolution T1- and T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic precontrast and postcontrast image sequences were obtained for each patient. Of the 623 patients, 177(28.4%) exhibited non visible tumors on MRI of clinical stage T1c. The imaging results were compared with the pathological findings with respect to both stage and Gleason scores (GS). Results Of the 177 prostatectomy patients with non visible tumors on MRI, pathological findings resulted in the upgrading of 49(27.7%) patients to a sum of GS 7 or more. 101(57.1%) patients exhibited tumor volumes greater than 0.5cc. The biochemical recurrence rate was significantly higher in the pathological upgraded group compared with the nonupgraded group after a mean follow-up time of 29 months. In the multiple logistic analysis, non visible tumor on MRI was not a significant predictor of low-risk PCA. Conclusions Even though cancer foci were not visualized by postbiopsy MRI, the pathological tumor volumes and extent of GS upgrading were relatively high. Therefore, nonvisible tumors by multiparametric MRI do not appear to be predictive of low-risk PCA.

[1]  Alexandre Mamedov,et al.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  T. Stamey,et al.  Zonal Distribution of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Correlation with Histologic Pattern and Direction of Spread , 1988, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  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.

[4]  A. Hoznek,et al.  The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. , 2009, European urology.

[5]  M. Becich,et al.  Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer in the general population: a study of healthy organ donors. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[6]  S. Mendrinos,et al.  Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[7]  P. Carroll,et al.  The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[8]  F. Fraggetta,et al.  Is Transition Zone Sampling at Repeated Saturation Prostate Biopsy Still Useful , 2010, Urologia Internationalis.

[9]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Masoom A Haider,et al.  Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  L. Klotz.  Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. , 2006, Urologic oncology.

[12]  D P Dearnaley,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[13]  M. Kattan,et al.  Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[15]  M. Colombel,et al.  Is it possible to model the risk of malignancy of focal abnormalities found at prostate multiparametric MRI? , 2012, European Radiology.

[16]  A. Haese*,et al.  Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low‐risk prostate cancer , 2008, Cancer.

[17]  M. Kattan,et al.  Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. , 2006, Radiology.

[18]  P. Carroll,et al.  Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[19]  A. Shalhav,et al.  A single microfocus (5% or less) of Gleason 6 prostate cancer at biopsy--can we predict adverse pathological outcomes? , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[20]  P. Carroll,et al.  Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Evis Sala,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  A. Prando.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program , 2010 .

[24]  Koon Ho Rha,et al.  Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[25]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prediction of significant cancer in men with stage Tic adenocarcinoma of the prostate , 2005, World Journal of Urology.

[26]  P. Choyke,et al.  Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[27]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer--a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[28]  M. Rosen,et al.  Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. , 2012, Urologic oncology.

[29]  B. Lim,et al.  The effects of the period between biopsy and diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer , 2010, BJU international.

[30]  K. Taari,et al.  Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. , 2001, Acta radiologica.