Prostate cancer: Is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance?

被引:36
作者
Cabrera, Alvin R. [1 ]
Coakley, Fergus V. [1 ]
Westphalen, Antonio C. [1 ]
Lu, Ying [1 ]
Zhao, Shoujun [1 ]
Shinohara, Katsuto [2 ]
Carroll, Peter R. [2 ]
Kurhanewicz, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Urol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2472070770
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management. Materials and Methods: Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43-85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome. Results: At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; kappa = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P>.05 for all). Conclusion: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value.
引用
收藏
页码:444 / 450
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] OPTIMIZATION OF PROSTATE CARCINOMA STAGING - COMPARISON OF IMAGING AND CLINICAL METHODS
    BONI, RAH
    BONER, JA
    DEBATIN, JF
    TRINKLER, F
    KNONAGEL, H
    VONHOCHSTETTER, A
    HELFENSTEIN, U
    KRESTIN, GP
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1995, 50 (09) : 593 - 600
  • [2] Choo R, 2004, Can J Urol, V11, P2118
  • [3] Feasibility study: Watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression
    Choo, R
    Klotz, L
    Danjoux, C
    Morton, GC
    DeBoer, G
    Szumacher, E
    Fleshner, N
    Bunting, P
    Hruby, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (04) : 1664 - 1669
  • [4] Validity of prostate-specific antigen as a tumour marker in men with prostate cancer managed by watchful-waiting: correlation with findings at serial endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    Chen, Irene
    Qayyum, Aliya
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Hricak, Hedvig
    Chen, Mei-hsiu
    Kurhanewicz, John
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2007, 99 (01) : 41 - 45
  • [5] Endorectal MR imaging MR spectroscopic imaging for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: Preliminary experience
    Coakley, FV
    Teh, HS
    Qayyum, A
    Swanson, MG
    Lu, Y
    Roach, M
    Pickett, B
    Shinohara, K
    Vigneron, DB
    Kurhanewicz, J
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (02) : 441 - 448
  • [6] Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer
    D'Amico, AV
    Whittington, R
    Malkowicz, B
    Schnall, M
    Schultz, D
    Cote, K
    Tomaszewski, JE
    Wein, A
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (03) : 759 - 763
  • [7] Prostate cancer characteristics and prostate specific antigen changes in screening detected patients initially treated with a watchful waiting policy
    de Vries, SH
    Raaijmakers, R
    Kranse, R
    Blijenberg, BG
    Schröder, FH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (06) : 2193 - 2196
  • [8] Greene FL, 2002, American Joint Committee on Cancer, V6th, P309
  • [9] Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer
    Hardie, C
    Parker, C
    Norman, A
    Eeles, R
    Horwich, A
    Huddart, R
    Dearnaley, D
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 (07) : 956 - 960
  • [10] The role of serial transrectal ultrasonography in a 'watchful waiting' protocol for men with localized prostate cancer
    Hruby, G
    Choo, R
    Klotz, L
    Danjoux, C
    Murphy, J
    Deboer, G
    Morton, G
    Rakovitch, E
    Szumacher, E
    Fleshner, N
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 87 (07) : 643 - 647