BJU international · 2013
Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Park Bong H, Jeon Hwang G, Choo Seol H, Jeong Byong C, Seo Seong I, Jeon Seong S, Choi Han Y, Lee Hyun M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate predictors of more aggressive disease and the role of multiparametric 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 298 patients with prostate cancer who met the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, defined as T1c/T2, PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, PSA density (PSAD) of <0.2 ng/mL(2) , Gleason score <7, and one or two positive biopsy cores. All patients underwent preoperative MRI, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, as well as radical prostatectomy (RP) between June 2005 and December 2011. Imaging results were correlated with pathological findings to evaluate the ability of MRI to select patients for AS.
RESULTS: In 35 (11.7%) patients, no discrete cancer was visible on MRI, while in the remaining 263 (88.3%) patients, a discrete cancer was visible. Pathological examination of RP specimens resulted in upstaging (>T2) in 21 (7%) patients, upgrading (Gleason score >6) in 136 (45.6%), and a diagnosis of unfavourable disease in 142 (47.7%) patients. The 263 patients (88.3%) with visible cancer on imaging were more likely to have their cancer status upgraded (49.8% vs 14.3%) and be diagnosed with unfavourable disease (52.1% vs 14.3%) than the 35 patients (11.7%) with no cancer visible upon imaging, and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001 for all). A visible cancer lesion on MRI, PSAD, and patient age were found to be predictors of unfavourable disease in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: MRI can predict adverse pathological features and be used to assess the eligibility of patients with prostate cancer for AS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 298 patients with prostate cancer who met the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, defined as T1c/T2, PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, PSA density (PSAD) of <0.2 ng/mL(2) , Gleason score <7, and one or two positive biopsy cores. All patients underwent preoperative MRI, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, as well as radical prostatectomy (RP) between June 2005 and December 2011. Imaging results were correlated with pathological findings to evaluate the ability of MRI to select patients for AS.
RESULTS: In 35 (11.7%) patients, no discrete cancer was visible on MRI, while in the remaining 263 (88.3%) patients, a discrete cancer was visible. Pathological examination of RP specimens resulted in upstaging (>T2) in 21 (7%) patients, upgrading (Gleason score >6) in 136 (45.6%), and a diagnosis of unfavourable disease in 142 (47.7%) patients. The 263 patients (88.3%) with visible cancer on imaging were more likely to have their cancer status upgraded (49.8% vs 14.3%) and be diagnosed with unfavourable disease (52.1% vs 14.3%) than the 35 patients (11.7%) with no cancer visible upon imaging, and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001 for all). A visible cancer lesion on MRI, PSAD, and patient age were found to be predictors of unfavourable disease in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: MRI can predict adverse pathological features and be used to assess the eligibility of patients with prostate cancer for AS.