Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 1027–1035 | Cite as

Abnormal findings on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging predict subsequent biopsy upgrade in patients with low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance

  • Robert R. Flavell
  • Antonio C. Westphalen
  • Carmin Liang
  • Christopher C. Sotto
  • Susan M. Noworolski
  • Daniel B. Vigneron
  • Zhen J. Wang
  • John Kurhanewicz
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the ability of multiparametric MR imaging to predict disease progression in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.

Methods

Sixty-four men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer managed by active surveillance were included in this HIPPA compliant, IRB approved study. We reviewed baseline MR imaging scans for the presence of a suspicious findings on T2-weighted imaging, MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI), and diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI). The Gleason grades at subsequent biopsy were recorded. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the predictive value of MR imaging for Gleason grades, and the model performance was described using Harrell’s C concordance statistic and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

The Cox model that incorporated T2-weighted MR imaging, DWI, and MRSI showed that only T2-weighted MR imaging and DWI are independent predictors of biopsy upgrade (T2; HR = 2.46; 95% CI 1.36–4.46; P = 0.003—diffusion; HR = 2.76; 95% CI 1.13–6.71; P = 0.03; c statistic = 67.7%; 95% CI 61.1–74.3). There was an increasing rate of Gleason score upgrade with a greater number of concordant findings on multiple MR sequences (HR = 2.49; 95% CI 1.72–3.62; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Abnormal results on multiparametric prostate MRI confer an increased risk for Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy in men with localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. These results may be of help in appropriately selecting candidates for active surveillance.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Active surveillance Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Dall’era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62(6):976–983. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI (2009) Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 182(5):2274–2278. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.024 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yakar D, Debats OA, Bomers JG, et al. (2012) Predictive value of MRI in the localization, staging, volume estimation, assessment of aggressiveness, and guidance of radiotherapy and biopsies in prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 35(1):20–31. doi:10.1002/jmri.22790 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091822 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, et al. (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(5):1035–1054. doi:10.1002/jmri.23860 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ (2011) Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 31(3):677–703. doi:10.1148/rg.313105139 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore CM, Ridout A, Emberton M (2013) The role of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 23(3):261–267. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f899f PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ouzzane A, Puech P, Villers A (2012) MRI and surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 22(3):231–236. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dcf7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dianat SS, Carter HB, Macura KJ (2013) Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation and management of clinically low-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol . doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.04.002 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen AP, Cunningham CH, Kurhanewicz J, et al. (2006) High-resolution 3D MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate at 3 T with the MLEV-PRESS sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 24(7):825–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Goldenberg SL (2008) Diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer—comparison between single-shot fast spin echo and echo planar imaging sequences. Magn Reson Imaging 26(1):72–76. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2007.04.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. (2012) Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Investig Radiol 47(3):153–158. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e31823ea1f0 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091409 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33(1):167–172. doi:10.1002/jmri.22317 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verma SK, McClure K, Parker L, et al. (2010) Simple linear measurements of the normal liver: interobserver agreement and correlation with hepatic volume on MRI. Clin Radiol 65(4):315–318. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.09.016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259(3):775–784. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102066 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chenevert TL, Galban CJ, Ivancevic MK, et al. (2011) Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):983–987. doi:10.1002/jmri.22363 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Males RG, Vigneron DB, Star-Lack J, et al. (2000) Clinical application of BASING and spectral/spatial water and lipid suppression pulses for prostate cancer staging and localization by in vivo 3D 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 43(1):17–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, et al. (2013) Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol 190(4):1213–1217. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.127 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, et al. (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 74(5):1094–1099. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.102 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS (2013) Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology 81(6):1279–1283. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.026 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S, et al. (2012) MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J Magn Reson Imaging 36(3):697–703. doi:10.1002/jmri.23676 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. (2012) Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 109(9):1315–1322. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, et al. (2013) Role of multiparametric 3.0 tesla magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.12423.
  27. 27.
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268(1):144–152. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121325 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, et al. (2012) Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 30(3):301–305. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.08.023 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, et al. (2011) 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. BJU Int 108(4):513–517. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al. (2008) Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 247(2):444–450. doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070770 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256(1):176–183. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091147 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, et al. (2011) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 84(997):31–37. doi:10.1259/bjr/14556365 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, et al. (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(3):586–591. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al. (2009) A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 56(6):981–987. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.11.051 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187(4):1247–1252. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188(5):1732–1738. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. (2013) Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol . doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000008 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. (2013) Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 119(18):3359–3366. doi:10.1002/cncr.28216 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Mullins JK, et al. (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characterization of prostate lesions in the active surveillance population: incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of disease reclassification. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37(6):948–956. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e31829ae20a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111(7):1037–1045. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. (2010) ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 105(9):1231–1236. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08938.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Scientific Cooperation to Advance Image-Guided Prostate Cancer Care (2012) American College of Radiology News Releases. Reston: International Scientific Cooperation to Advance Image-Guided Prostate Cancer Care Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert R. Flavell
    • 1
  • Antonio C. Westphalen
    • 1
  • Carmin Liang
    • 1
  • Christopher C. Sotto
    • 1
  • Susan M. Noworolski
    • 1
  • Daniel B. Vigneron
    • 1
  • Zhen J. Wang
    • 1
  • John Kurhanewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Biomedical ImagingUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations