Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권7호
  • /
  • Pages.1087-1099
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multiparametric MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: An Overview and a Practical Approach

  • Chau Hung Lee (Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital) ;
  • Teck Wei Tan (Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital) ;
  • Cher Heng Tan (Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2020.10.08
  • 심사 : 2021.01.08
  • 발행 : 2021.07.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

MRI has become important for the detection of prostate cancer. MRI-guided biopsy is superior to conventional systematic biopsy in patients suspected with prostate cancer. MRI is also increasingly used for monitoring patients with low-risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. It improves patient selection for active surveillance at diagnosis, although its role during follow-up is unclear. We aim to review existing evidence and propose a practical approach for incorporating MRI into active surveillance protocols.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757 
  2. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767-1777 
  3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-822 
  4. Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, Giganti F, Valerio M, Shanmugabavan Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2019;76:284-303 
  5. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193:807-811 
  6. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017;120:511-519 
  7. Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 2018;75:300-309 
  8. Nahar B, Katims A, Barboza MP, Soodana Prakash N, Venkatramani V, Kava B, et al. Reclassification rates of patients eligible for active surveillance after the addition of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy: an analysis of 7 widely used eligibility criteria. Urology 2017;110:134-139 
  9. Kimura M, Tay KJ, Muto S, Horie S. Focal therapy and active surveillance of prostate cancer in East and Southeast Asia. In: Polascik T, ed. Imaging and focal therapy of early prostate cancer, 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2017:75-81 
  10. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424 
  11. Zhang K, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Prostate cancer screening in Europe and Asia. Asian J Urol 2017;4:86-95 
  12. Peyromaure M, Debre B, Mao K, Zhang G, Wang Y, Sun Z, et al. Management of prostate cancer in China: a multicenter report of 6 institutions. J Urol 2005;174:1794-1797 
  13. 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;190:1218-1222 
  14. Parker PA, Davis JW, Latini DM, Baum G, Wang X, Ward JF, et al. Relationship between illness uncertainty, anxiety, fear of progression and quality of life in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. BJU Int 2015;117:469-477 
  15. Zhu Y, Freedland SJ, Ye D. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases best of Asia, 2019: challenges and opportunities. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23:197-198 
  16. Mochtar CA, Andika RS. The value of prostate-specific antigen in Asia. Ther Adv Urol 2010;2:77-83 
  17. Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7:243-255 
  18. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-2670 
  19. Bayar G, Horasanli K, Acinikli H, Tanriverdi O, Dalkilic A, Arisan S. The importance of active surveillance, and immediate re-biopsy in low-risk prostate cancer: the largest series from Turkey. Turk J Urol 2016;42:140-144 
  20. Ercole B, Parekh DJ. Active surveillance: pitfalls to consider. Arch Esp Urol 2011;64:695-702 
  21. Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Fahey M, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the Movember foundation's global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:80-91 
  22. Jin BS, Kang SH, Kim DY, Oh HG, Kim CI, Moon GH, et al. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance: does prostate-specific antigen density matter? Korean J Urol 2015;56:624-629 
  23. Tay KJ, Mendez M, Moul JW, Polascik TJ. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: can we modernize contemporary protocols to improve patient selection and outcomes in the focal therapy era? Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:185-190 
  24. Rouviere O, Moldovan PC. The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Asian J Urol 2019;6:137-145 
  25. Richenberg J, Logager V, Panebianco V, Rouviere O, Villeirs G, Schoots IG. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2019;29:6940-6952 
  26. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, Rosenkrantz AB, Margolis DJ, Turkbey B, et al. PI-RADS steering committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019;292:464-474 
  27. Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer MD, Mertan FV, et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 2018;286:186-195 
  28. Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2018;122:946-958 
  29. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 2014;113:864-870 
  30. Park JJ, Park BK. Role of PI-RADSv2 with multiparametric MRI in determining who needs active surveillance or definitive treatment according to PRIAS. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1753-1759 
  31. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013;268:144-152 
  32. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Holtz J, Silverman RK, Tsivian E, Schulman A, et al. Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017;20:323-327 
  33. 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;119:3359-3366 
  34. National Insitute of Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management (NICE guideline 131). Nice.org.uk Web site. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131. Published May 9, 2019. Accessed September 4, 2020 
  35. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618-629 
  36. Yoo S, Hong JH, Byun SS, Lee JY, Chung BH, Kim CS. Is suspicious upstaging on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging useful in improving the reliability of Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria? Use of the K-CaP registry. Urol Oncol 2017;35:459.e7-459.e13 
  37. Thurtle D, Barrett T, Thankappan-Nair V, Koo B, Warren A, Kastner C, et al. Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018;122:59-65 
  38. Eineluoto JT, Jarvinen P, Kenttamies A, Kilpelainen TP, Vasarainen H, Sandeman K, et al. Repeat multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. PLoS One 2017;12:e0189272 
  39. Perlis N, Al-Kasab T, Ahmad A, Goldberg E, Fadak K, Sayyid R, et al. Defining a cohort that may not require repeat prostate biopsy based on PCA3 score and magnetic resonance imaging: the dual negative effect. J Urol 2018;199:1182-1187 
  40. Felker ER, Wu J, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Huang J, et al. Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value. J Urol 2016;195:1421-1427 
  41. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rothwax JT, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015;33:202.e1-202.e7 
  42. Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, et al. Value of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance after 1 yr follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 2019;5:407-415 
  43. Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D, et al. Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol 2020;77:311-317 
  44. Glass AS, Dall'Era MA. Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance. BJU Int 2019;124:730-737 
  45. Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in active surveillance: a critical review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019;22:5-15 
  46. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018;199:683-690 
  47. Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, Klotz L, McGowan T, Srigley J, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:171-178 
  48. Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, et al. Five-year outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging-based active surveillance for prostate cancer: a large cohort study. Eur Urol 2020;78:443-451 
  49. Gallagher KM, Christopher E, Cameron AJ, Little S, Innes A, Davis G, et al. Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies. BJU Int 2019;123:429-438 
  50. Connor MJ, Miah S, Jayadevan R, Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Shah T, et al. Value of systematic sampling in an mp-MRI targeted prostate biopsy strategy. Transl Androl Urol 2020;9:1501-1509 
  51. 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 2017;71:648-655 
  52. 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;84:31-37 
  53. Marin L, Ezziane M, Comperat E, Mozer P, Cancel-Tassin G, Cote JF, et al. Comparison of semi-automated and manual methods to measure the volume of prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging 2017;98:423-428 
  54. Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, Salciccia S, Gentilucci A, Di Pierro G, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 category cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2020;6:463-478 
  55. Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol 2018;7:70-82 
  56. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus 2019;5:592-599 
  57. Schlenker B, Apfelbeck M, Armbruster M, Chaloupka M, Stief CG, Clevert DA. Comparison of PIRADS 3 lesions with histopathological findings after MRI-fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate in a real world-setting. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2019;71:165-170 
  58. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Taneja SS. Using multiparametric MRI to 'personalize' biopsy for men. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:498-503 
  59. Hansen NL, Koo BC, Warren AY, Kastner C, Barrett T. Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection. Eur J Radiol 2017;95:307-313 
  60. Scialpi M, Martorana E, Aisa MC, Rondoni V, D'Andrea A, Bianchi G. Score 3 prostate lesions: a gray zone for PI-RADS v2. Turk J Urol 2017;43:237-240 
  61. Yaguchi G, Tang HJ, Deebajah M, Keeley J, Pantelic M, Williamson S, et al. The effect of multiplicity of PI-RADS 3 lesions on cancer detection rate of confirmatory targeted biopsy in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and managed with active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2020;38:599.e9-599.e13 
  62. Steinkohl F, Gruber L, Bektic J, Nagele U, Aigner F, Herrmann TRW, et al. Retrospective analysis of the development of PIRADS 3 lesions over time: when is a follow-up MRI reasonable? World J Urol 2018;36:367-373 
  63. Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Walton-Diaz A, Hoang AN, Siddiqui MM, 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;20:293-298 
  64. Schoots IG, Moore CM, Rouviere O. Role of MRI in low-risk prostate cancer: finding the wolf in sheep's clothing or the sheep in wolf's clothing? Curr Opin Urol 2017;27:238-245