The Role of MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

  • Michele Fascelli
  • Arvin K. George
  • Thomas Frye
  • Baris Turkbey
  • Peter L. Choyke
  • Peter A. PintoEmail author
New Imaging Techniques (A Rastinehad and S Rais-Bahrami, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques


Approximately one in seven American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime, and at least 50 % of newly diagnosed patients will present with low-risk disease. In the last decade, the decision-making paradigm for management has shifted due to high rates of disease detection and overtreatment, attributed to prostate-specific antigen screening, with more men deferring definitive treatment for active surveillance. The advent of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) and MRI/ transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion-guided prostate biopsy has refined the process of diagnosis, identifying patients with clinically-significant cancer and larger disease burden who would most likely benefit from intervention. In parallel, the utilization of MP-MRI in the surveillance of low-grade, low-volume disease is on the rise, reflecting support in a growing body of literature. The aim of this review is to appraise and summarize the data evaluating the role of magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for prostate cancer.


Active surveillance Prostate cancer Multiparametric MRI Outcomes Cancer detection 



The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medical Research Scholars Program is a public-private partnernship supported jointly by the NIH and generous contributions to the Foundation for the NIH from Pfizer Inc., The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, The Newport Foundation, The American Association for Dental Research, The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company, as well as other private donors.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Peter A. Pinto reports a patent US 8447384B2 issued.

Michele Fascelli, Arvin K. George, Thomas Frye, Baris Turkbey, and Peter L. Choyke each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Final Recommendation Statement: Prostate Cancer: Screening—US Preventive Services Task Force. Accessed December 15, 2014.
  3. 3.
    Stephenson SK, Chang EK, Marks LS. Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):315–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.007.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.••
    Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systemic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24710. Prospective trial evaluating the ability of fusion biopsy to detect clinically significant diease and the predictive value of MRI utilizing established thresholds of Gleason ≥7, and Gleason 6 >50%.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2010;256(1):176–83. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091147.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Linehan WM, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013;268(1). doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121325/-/DC1.
  7. 7.
    Klotz L. Active surveillance: patient selection. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(3):239–44. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f8f6b.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2664–70. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hricak H, Williams RD, Spring DB, et al. Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141(6):1101–10. doi: 10.2214/ajr.141.6.1101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648–58. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Grant KB, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(3):387. doi: 10.1007/s11934-013-0387-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rothwax JT, George AK, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Multiparametric MRI in biopsy guidance for prostate cancer: fusion-guided. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:439171. doi: 10.1155/2014/439171.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1749–54. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E694–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11503.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E43–9. doi: 10.1111/bju.12670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and image-guided biopsy to detect seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2014:1-32. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0250.
  21. 21.
    Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol. 2013;190(6):2020–5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol. 2012;30(2):213–8. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on MRI, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2014. doi: 10.1111/bju.12938.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2152–7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1721–7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.052.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E783–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11646.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.•
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059. The authors showed that multiparametric MRI and fusion biopsy upgraded a significant percentage of cases and preferentially detected high grade disease compared to 12-core.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Comparison of MR-US fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int. 2014. doi: 10.1111/bju.12871.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int. 2013;111(7):1037–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Mullins JK, Epstein JI, Carter HB, Macura KJ. 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
  32. 32.
    Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1728–34. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2432–7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):864–70. doi: 10.1111/bju.12423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology? Urol Oncol. 2014;32(6):741–7. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):40–6. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2013.43.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.••
    Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119(18):3359–66. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28216. This study assessed parameters predictive of progression in an active surveillance cohort of which 29% were no longer candidates following fusion biopsy. A nomogram was constructed to determine eligibility to be placed or remain on active surveillance based on predictive MRI parameters.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Røder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer—a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(8):830–5. doi: 10.1002/jso.23584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Giannarini G, Zazzara M, Rossanese M, et al. Will multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging be the future tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer? Front Oncol. 2014;4:294. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00294.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1247–52. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singer EA, Kaushal A, Turkbey B, Couvillon A, Pinto PA, Parnes HL. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(3):243–50. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e3283527f99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(17):2810–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.7311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wolters T, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Schröder FH. Is prostate-specific antigen velocity selective for clinically significant prostate cancer in screening? European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam). Eur Urol. 2009;55(2):385–92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thomsen FB, Christensen IJ, Brasso K, Røder MA, Iversen P. Prostate-specific antigen doubling time as a progression criterion in an active surveillance programme for patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113(5b):E98–E105. doi: 10.1111/bju.12367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    George AK, Pinto PA, Rais-Bahrami S. Multiparametric MRI in the PSA screening era. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:465816. doi: 10.1155/2014/465816.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, et al. Identification of threshold prostate-specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer by MRI/US fusion guided biopsy. J Urol. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.002.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sonn G a, Filson CP, Chang E, et al. Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.003.
  49. 49.
    Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. The role of image-guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.083.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20(4):293–8. doi: 10.5152/dir.2014.13319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.••
    Walton-Diaz A, Shakir NA, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy in the follow-up of prostate cancer progression for men on active surveillance. Abstr #PD12-02 Present AUA Annu Meet 2014; May 16-21, 2014; Orlando. FL J Urol. 2014;191(4S):e346–7. Only study to establish the utility of serial MRI and serial fusion biopsy in active surveillance. The authors concluded that fusion biopsy detects progression with a lesser number of cores though both fusion and 12-core biopsy are valuable in follow-up.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mohler JL. The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(2):145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomsen FB, Røder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60(2):A4575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):126–31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2185–90. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):981–7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Fascelli
    • 1
  • Arvin K. George
    • 1
  • Thomas Frye
    • 1
  • Baris Turkbey
    • 2
  • Peter L. Choyke
    • 2
  • Peter A. Pinto
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations