Background: To evaluate the role of confirmatory multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate at the time of Active Surveillance (AS) enrollment to reduce disease misclassification. Materials: From 2012 to 2016, 383 patients with low-risk disease respecting Prostate Cancer Research International AS criteria underwent confirmatory 1.5-T mpMRI. AS was proposed to patients with Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≤3 and no extraprostatic extension (EPE), whereas patients with PI-RADS score ≥4 and/or EPE were treated actively. Kaplan-Meier analyses quantified progression-free survival (PFS) in patients enrolled in the AS program. Logistic regression analyses tested the association between confirmatory mpMRI and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at radical prostatectomy (RP). Diagnostic performance of mpMRI was calculated in patients submitted to immediate RP. Results: PFS rate was 99, 90 and 86% at 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. At multivariable analysis, PI-RADS 3, PI-RADS 4, PI-RADS 5 and EPE increased the probability of having csPCa at immediate RP (PI-RADS 3 [OR] 1.2, p = 0.26; PI-RADS 4 [OR] 5.1, p = 0.02; PI-RADS 5 [OR] 6.7; p = 0.009; EPE [OR] 11.8, p < 0.001). Confirmatory mpMRI showed sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 85, 55, 68 and 76% respectively. Conclusions: MpMRI at the time of AS enrollment reduces the misclassification rate of csPCa. We suggest to perform target biopsies in patients with PI-RADS score 3 and 4 lesions.

Keywords:
Multiparametric magnetic resonance, Active Surveillance, Low risk prostate cancer, Disease misclassification, Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System score, Extraprostatic extension
1.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124–137.
2.
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ: A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active Treatment. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 954–960.
3.
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, Yamamoto T, Mamedov A, Loblaw A: Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 272–277.
4.
Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ, Jones JS, Magi-Galluzzi C, Klein EA: The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2011; 37: 123.
5.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, Villers A, Hugosson J, Moore CM: Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627–636.
6.
van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH: Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560–1563.
7.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.
8.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S: PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40.
9.
Van Den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC: Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol vol 2014; 65: 1023–1031.
10.
Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, Manfredi M, Veltri A, Russo F, Sottile A, Damiano R: In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 2016; 118: 527–534.
11.
Guzzo TJ, 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. Urol Oncol 2012; 30: 301–305.
12.
Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, Ouzaïd I, Allory Y, Bouanane M, Abbou CC, Salomon L, De La Taille A: 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 2011; 108: 513–517.
13.
Motamedinia P, RiChard JL, McKiernan JM, DeCastro GJ, Benson MC: Role of immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy to ensure accurate eligibility for active surveillance. Urology 2012; 80: 1070–1074.
14.
Pessoa RR, Viana PC, Mattedi RL, Guglielmetti GB, Cordeiro MD, Coelho RF, Nahas WC, Srougi M: Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk ­stratification in patients considered for ­active surveillance. BJU Int 2017; 119: 535–542.
15.
Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Linehan WM, Wood BJ, Pinto PA: Prostate Cancer: can identify patients who are candidates. Radiology 2013; 268: 144–152.
16.
Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Holtz J, Silverman RK, Tsivian E, Schulman A, Moul JW, Polascik TJ: Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 323–327.
17.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368–374.
18.
Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, Partin AW: Contemporary evaluation of the D’amico risk classification of prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 70: 931–935.
19.
Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, Carroll PR: The University of California, San Francisco ­cancer of the prostate risk assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 173: 1938–1942.
20.
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.e13.
21.
Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F, Mozer P, Olivier J, Barkatz J, Puech P, Villers A: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies. J Urol 2015; 194: 350–356.
22.
Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 2016; 72: 275–281.
23.
Anderson CB, Sternberg IA, Karen-Paz G, Kim PH, Sjoberg D, Vargas HA, Touijer K, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B: Age is associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among men with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance. J Urol 2015; 194: 1607–1611.
24.
Tjaden HB, Culp DA, Flocks RH: Clinical adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients under 50 years of age. J Urol 1965; 93: 618–621.
25.
Kinnear NJ, Kichenadasse G, Plagakis S, O’Callaghan ME, Kopsaftis T, Walsh S, Foreman D: Prostate cancer in men aged less than 50 years at diagnosis. World J Urol 2016; 34: 1533–1539.
26.
Shroder FH, Damhuis RA, Kirkels WJ, De Koning HJ, Kranse R, Nus HG, Blijenberg BG: European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer – the Rotterdam pilot studies. Int J cancer 1996; 65: 145–151.
27.
Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH: A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121–125.
28.
Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP: Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71(3 suppl): 933–938.
29.
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.
30.
Hansen NL, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Warren AY, Doble A, Gnanapragasam V, Bratt O, Kastner C, Barrett T: Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 2259–2266.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.