Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;77(4):501-507.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.009. Epub 2019 Dec 23.

Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

Gregory T Chesnut  1 , Emily A Vertosick  2 , Nicole Benfante  2 , Daniel D Sjoberg  2 , Jonathan Fainberg  3 , Taehyoung Lee  4 , James Eastham  4 , Vincent Laudone  4 , Peter Scardino  4 , Karim Touijer  4 , Andrew Vickers  2 , Behfar Ehdaie  4
Affiliations

Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

Gregory T Chesnut et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Active surveillance (AS) protocols rely on rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, imaging, and biopsy to identify disease progression.

Objective: To evaluate whether an AS regimen based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical stage changes can detect reclassification to grade group (GG) ≥2 disease compared with scheduled systematic biopsies.

Design, setting, and participants: We identified a cohort of men initiated on AS between January 2013 and April 2016 at a single tertiary-care center. Patients completed confirmatory testing and prostate MRI prior to enrollment, then underwent laboratory and physical evaluation every 6 mo, MRI every 18 mo, and biopsy every 3yr.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: MRI results were evaluated using composite Likert/Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 scoring. MRI and clinical changes were assessed for association with disease progression. Univariable and multivariable regression models were used to predict upgrading on 3-yr biopsy.

Results and limitations: At 3yr, of 207 men, 66 (32%) had≥GG2 at biopsy: 55 (83%) with GG2, 10 (15%) with GG3, and one (1.5%) with GG4. Among patients with a 3-yr MRI score of ≥3, 41% had≥GG2 disease, compared with 15% with an MRI score of <3 (p=0.0002). The MRI score increased in 48 men (23%), decreased in 27 (13%), and was unchanged in 132 (64%) men. Increases in MRI score were not associated with reclassification after adjusting for the 3-yr MRI score (p=0.9). Biopsying only for an increased MRI score or clinical stage would avoid 681 biopsies per 1000 men, at the cost of missing ≥GG2 disease in 169 patients.

Conclusions: An AS strategy that uses MRI or clinical changes to trigger prostate biopsy avoids many biopsies but misses an unacceptable amount of clinically significant disease. Prostate biopsy for men on AS should be performed at scheduled intervals, regardless of stable imaging or examination findings.

Patient summary: An active surveillance strategy for biopsy based only on increases in magnetic resonance imaging score or clinical stage will avoid many biopsies; however, it will miss many patients with clinically significant prostate cancer.

Keywords: Active surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Progression; Prostate cancer; Prostate imaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial disclosures: Gregory T. Chesnut certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Comment in

References

    1. Modi PK, Kaufman SR, Qi J, et al. National trends in active surveillance for prostate cancer: validation of Medicare Claims-based algorithms. Urology 2018;120:96–102. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 2015;314:80–2. - PubMed
    1. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, Linsell SM, Lane BR, Miller DC. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;67:44–50. - PubMed
    1. Mohler J, Armstrong A, Bahanson R, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN 2016;14:19–30. - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618–29. - PubMed

Publication types