The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance in active surveillance of a low‐risk prostate cancer cohort from clinical practice
Autor
Chamorro Castillo, L.
García Morales, L.
Ruiz López, D.
Salguero Segura, J.
Valero-Rosa, J.
Anglada Curado, FJ.
Mesa Quesada, Juan
Blanca Pedregosa, A.
Carrasco-Valiente, J.
Gómez Gómez, Enrique
Editor
WileyFecha
2023Materia
Active surveillanceBiopsy
Multiparametric magnetic resonance
Prostate cancer
METS:
Mostrar el registro METSPREMIS:
Mostrar el registro PREMISMetadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemResumen
Introduction
Active surveillance (AS) is considered a suitable management practice for those patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At present, however, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS protocols has not yet been clearly established.
Outcomes
To determine the role of mpMRI and its ability to detect significant prostate cancer (SigPCa) in PCa patients enrolled in AS protocols.
Materials and Methods
There were 229 patients enrolled in an AS protocol between 2011 and 2020 at Reina Sofía University Hospital. MRI interpretation was based on PIRADS v.1 or v.2/2.1 classification. Demographics, clinical, and analytical data were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for mpMRI in different scenarios. We defined SigPCa and reclassification/progression as a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, a clinical stage ≥T2b, or an increase in PCa volume. Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate progression-free survival time.
Results
Median age was 69.02 (±7.73) at diagnosis, with a 0.15 (±0.08) PSA density (PSAD). Eighty-six patients were reclassified after confirmatory biopsy, with a suspicious mpMRI an indication for a clear reclassification and risk-predictor factor in disease progression (p < 0.05). During follow-up, 46 patients were changed from AS to active treatment mainly due to disease progression. Ninety patients underwent ≥2mpMRI during follow-up, with a median follow-up of 29 (15–49) months. Thirty-four patients had a baseline suspicious mpMRI (at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy): 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 and 20 patients with ≥PIRADS 4. From 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 baseline mpMRI, 29% progressed radiologically, with a 50% progression rate versus 10% (1/10 patients) for those with similar or decreased mpMRI risk. Of the 56 patients with a non-suspicious baseline mpMRI (PIRADS < 2), 14 patients (25%) had an increased degree of radiological suspicion, with a detection rate of SigPCa of 29%. The mpMRI NPV during follow-up was 0.91.
Conclusion
A suspicious mpMRI increases the reclassification and disease progression risk during follow-up and plays an important role in monitoring biopsies. In addition, a high NPV at mpMRI follow-up can help to decrease the need to monitor biopsies during AS.