BJUI compass · 2026
The use of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rivera López Carlos A, Higgins Michelle I, Jing Yuezhou, Alshak Mark N, Cheaib Joseph G, Mamawala Mufaddal, Landis Patricia, Allaf Mohammad E, Macura Katarzyna J, Pavlovich Christian P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the performance of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) compared to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer (PCa), focusing on lesion detection, PI-RADS classification changes and grade reclassification (GR) rates.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional AS database for men who underwent mpMRI followed by bpMRI. Lesion counts and PI-RADS classification were compared. Second, a subgroup of men who underwent mpMRI, biopsy, bpMRI and then repeat biopsy ('bpMRI biopsy group') was matched to a control group who underwent mpMRI, biopsy, another mpMRI and then repeat biopsy ('mpMRI biopsy group') based on age, PSA density, year of diagnosis and number of positive cores. GR rates at systematic and targeted biopsy of all PI-RADS 3-5 lesions were compared, as were PI-RADS changes.
RESULTS: A total of 129 men with a median of 29 months between mpMRI and bpMRI were included. mpMRI identified 77 PI-RADS 3-5 lesions versus 114 on subsequent bpMRI (0.60 vs. 0.88 lesions/patient, p = 0.01); however, lesion distribution was similar, with rates of PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 lesions of 53%, 40% and 6% on mpMRI and 53%, 37% and 11% on subsequent bpMRI (p = 0.87, 0.29 and 0.23, respectively). In the matched biopsy subgroups, when comparing men who had two surveillance mpMRIs with those who had a surveillance mpMRI followed by a surveillance bpMRI, lesion stability was not significantly different across PI-RADS categories. GR at last biopsy occurred in 29% of the bpMRI biopsy group versus in 25% of the mpMRI biopsy group (p = 0.7).
CONCLUSIONS: bpMRI appears safe to incorporate into AS over the short term, as it was noninferior to mpMRI with similar GR rates and lesion stability.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional AS database for men who underwent mpMRI followed by bpMRI. Lesion counts and PI-RADS classification were compared. Second, a subgroup of men who underwent mpMRI, biopsy, bpMRI and then repeat biopsy ('bpMRI biopsy group') was matched to a control group who underwent mpMRI, biopsy, another mpMRI and then repeat biopsy ('mpMRI biopsy group') based on age, PSA density, year of diagnosis and number of positive cores. GR rates at systematic and targeted biopsy of all PI-RADS 3-5 lesions were compared, as were PI-RADS changes.
RESULTS: A total of 129 men with a median of 29 months between mpMRI and bpMRI were included. mpMRI identified 77 PI-RADS 3-5 lesions versus 114 on subsequent bpMRI (0.60 vs. 0.88 lesions/patient, p = 0.01); however, lesion distribution was similar, with rates of PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 lesions of 53%, 40% and 6% on mpMRI and 53%, 37% and 11% on subsequent bpMRI (p = 0.87, 0.29 and 0.23, respectively). In the matched biopsy subgroups, when comparing men who had two surveillance mpMRIs with those who had a surveillance mpMRI followed by a surveillance bpMRI, lesion stability was not significantly different across PI-RADS categories. GR at last biopsy occurred in 29% of the bpMRI biopsy group versus in 25% of the mpMRI biopsy group (p = 0.7).
CONCLUSIONS: bpMRI appears safe to incorporate into AS over the short term, as it was noninferior to mpMRI with similar GR rates and lesion stability.