Abstract
Active surveillance is becoming an established approach for men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer who wish to defer or avoid active treatment until signs of change in that disease become apparent. The standard approach to monitoring men on active surveillance includes regular PSA tests, digital rectal examination and repeat biopsy. Recent advances in multiparametric MRI have seen it being used in men on active surveillance, to assess for higher-risk disease at the start of active surveillance. It is also useful for the monitoring of men on active surveillance to detect change over time.
At present, there are few data on MRI as a follow-up tool in active surveillance. The PRECISE guidelines for the reporting of MRI in men on active surveillance recommend reporting of absolute measurements of any lesion at baseline and each follow-up scan, as well as a score for the likelihood of clinically significant change on MRI. Adoption of the these guidelines will allow for robust comparisons of MRI data from different centres, in order to give a definitive answer to the question of whether MRI can replace biopsy in men on active surveillance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, Jones KM, Kwon Y, Gingrich JR, et al. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:81–7.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24.
Parker C. Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5(2):101–6.
Bangma CH, Bul M, van der Kwast TH, Pickles T, Korfage IJ, Hoeks CM, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;85(3):295–302.
Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Vesprini D, et al. Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2010;184:1942–6.
Vickers A. Systematic review of pretreatment PSA velocity and doubling time as PCA predictors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27:398–403.
Guichard G, Larre´ S, Gallina A, Lazar A, Faucon H, Chemama S, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2007;52:430–5.
Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlott A, Dobronski P, Dobrovitis M, Fakhari M, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol. 2001;166:1679–83.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):627–36.
Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, Fütterer JJ, Witjes JA, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:152–7.
Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64:981–7.
Dall’era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:976–83.
Muthigi A, Sidana A, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Maruf M, Valayil S, et al. Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Invest. 2016; doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.08.008.
Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014;348:f7524.
Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskovitz CS, Shukla-Dave A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:1732–8.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta- analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1112–21.
Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, Hindman N, Deng FM, Babb JS, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology. 2013;269:482–92.
Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, Logan J, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:3359–66.
Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Partin AW, et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol. 2013;190:1218–22.
Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Smiszek R, Nützel R, Kühn R, Engelhard K. Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28:943–6.
De Visschere PJ, Briganti A, Fütterer JJ, Ghadjar P, Isbarn H, Massard C, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer. Insights Imaging. 2016;7:205–14.
De Visschere PJ, Naesens L, Libbrecht L, Van Praet C, Lumen N, Fonteyne V, et al. What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1098–107.
Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hershey K, 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;187:1247–52.
Robertson NL, Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Barratt D, Emberton M. Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study. Eur Urol. 2013;65(3):628–34.
Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–90.
Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey F, Lieu P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(6):411–6.
Stevens DJ, Moore C, Ahmed H, Allen C, Kirkham A, Van Der Meulen J, et al. 1096 the natural history of untreated prostate MRI lesions in an active surveillance prostate cancer population–260 patient-years. Eur Urol Suppl. 2012;11:e1096–e1096a.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.
Moore C, Petrides N, Emberton M. Can MRI replace serial biopsies in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24:280–7.
Gehan EA, Tefft MC. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors)? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:179–81.
Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Vanas N, Parker C, Giles S, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:31–7.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Committee. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.
Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109.
Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations—a report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011.
Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, Sharma DS, Huang J, Dorey FJ, et al. Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low- vs. intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.070.
Gordon LG, James R, Tuffaha HW, Lowe A, Yaxley J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of multiparametric MRI with increased active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25504.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giganti, F., Stavrinides, V., Moore, C.M. (2018). Can MRI Replace Biopsy in Men on Surveillance?. In: Klotz, L. (eds) Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62709-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62710-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)