Objective: To evaluate the prognostic role of multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) eligible for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. Patients and Methods: We analyzed prospectively 73 patients with PCa and PRIAS criteria for low-risk disease. All patients fitted criteria for AS but optioned surgery treatment. The mp-MRI was performed to define the likelihood of malignancy according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (1-5). Patients were divided in 2 groups: non-visible cancer lesion on MRI (PIRADS 2-3) and visible cancer (PIRADS 4-5). Preoperative clinical data (age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, positive core biopsy, PSA density (PSAD)) and definitive pathological findings (staging, upgrading, unfavorable disease) were compared between groups. PIRADS score was correlated with pathological data to evaluate the prognostic role of mp-MRI; and preoperative variables and definitive pathology (upgrading, upstaging and unfavorable disease) were also assessed. Results: PSAD (p = 0.04) and pathological stage (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the presence of visible disease. Visible disease was significantly associated with upstaging (p = 0.03). Correlation between PIRADS 5 and unfavorable disease was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The mp-MRI had adequate sensibility in detecting upstaging (92%), intermediate for upgrading (76%) and unfavorable disease (76%). Negative predictive value was higher for upstaging than for upgrading or unfavorable disease (96 vs. 68% and 64%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that PIRADS 5 was a significant predictor of upstaging (p = 0.05, OR 16.12) and unfavorable disease (p = 0.01, OR 6.53). Conclusion: A visible lesion on mp-MRI strongly predicts significant PCa in patients eligible for AS according to PRIAS criteria, based on upstaging and unfavorable disease. We believe that mp-MRI is an important tool and should be added to clinical selection criteria for AS.

Keywords:
PRIAS, PIRADS, Prostate cancer, Multiparametric MRI, Active surveillance
1.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al: Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013;63:597-603.
2.
Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012;62:976-983.
3.
Lees K, Durve M, Parker C: Active surveillance in prostate cancer: patient selection and triggers for intervention. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22:210-215.
4.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374.
5.
van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al: Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘prostate cancer research international: active surveillance' study. BJU Int 2010;105:956-962.
6.
Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-2670.
7.
van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al: Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008;54:1297-1305.
8.
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;28:126-131.
9.
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;29:2185-2190.
10.
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;119:3359-3366.
11.
Porcaro AB, Borsato A, Romano M, et al: Accuracy of preoperative endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinical under-staging of localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2013;31:1245-1251.
12.
Vasarainen H, Salman J, Salminen H, et al: Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS). World J Urol 2015;33:1735-1740.
13.
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;113:864-870.
14.
Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B: Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:7-11.
15.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845.
16.
Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB, et al: International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1467-1473.
17.
Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, et al: Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012;62:462-468.
18.
Klotz L: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: debate over the application, not the concept. Eur Urol 2015;67:1006-1008.
19.
Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:993-1005.
20.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer: Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. London, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2014, clinical guideline no. 175, p 46. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175 (accessed March 2015).
21.
Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-Bahrami S, et al: Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. J Urol 2015;193:1943-1949.
22.
Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al: The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int 2007;99:786-793.
23.
Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K: Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006;238:597-603.
24.
Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al: Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;109:1315-1322.
25.
Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, et al: Histology core-specific evaluation of the European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 2013;112:1080-1087.
26.
Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, et al: Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2011;14:232-237.
27.
Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, et al: 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.
28.
Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, 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.
29.
Porpiglia F, Russo F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Fiori C, Regge D: Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 2015;41:124-133.
30.
Salami SS, Vira MA, Turkbey B, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging outperforms the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer 2014;120:2876-2882.
31.
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;191:1749-1754.
32.
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;17:40-46.
33.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz B, et al: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164:759-763.
34.
Marcus DM, Rossi PJ, Nour SG, Jani AB: The impact of multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging on risk stratification in patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2014;84:132-137.
35.
Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, et al: Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 2008;247:444-450.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.