Clinically insignificant prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active surveillance criteria: Utility of PI‐RADS v2

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 47; no. 4; pp. 1072 - 1079
• Main Authors: Yim, Jae Hyun, Kim, Chan Kyo, Kim, Jae‐Hun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2018
• Subjects: active surveillance; Aged; Cancer; Cancer research; Cancer surgery; Contrast Media; Cores; Diffusion coefficient; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Field strength; Humans; Image Enhancement - methods; Imaging; Internationality; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Medical research; Middle Aged; MRI; Multivariate analysis; Patients; PI‐RADS; PRIAS; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Radiology Information Systems; Retrospective Studies; Surveillance; prostate cancer; PRIAS; MRI; PI-RADS; active surveillance
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25856

Background Active surveillance (AS) is an important treatment strategy for prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) v2 has been addressed, but few studies have reported the value of PI‐RADS v2 for assessing risk stratification in patients with PCa, especially on selecting potential candidates for AS. Purpose To investigate the utility of PI‐RADS v2 and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in evaluating patients with insignificant PCa, who are suitable for AS. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects In all, 238 patients with PCa who met the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria underwent radical prostatectomy. Field Strength/Sequence 3.0T, including T2‐weighted, diffusion‐weighted, and dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging. Assessment Insignificant cancer was defined histopathologically as an organ‐confined disease with a tumor volume <0.5 cm3 without Gleason score 4–5. Patients were divided into two groups based on the PI‐RADS v2 and tumor ADC: A, PI‐RADS score ≤3 and ADC ≥1.095 × 10−3mm2/s; and B, PI‐RADS score 4–5 or ADC <1.095 × 10−3mm2/s. Preoperative clinical and imaging variables were evaluated regarding the associations with insignificant cancer. Results Of the 238 patients, 101 (42.8%) were diagnosed with insignificant cancer on pathological findings. The number of positive cores, prostate‐specific antigen density (PSAD), PI‐RADS v2 and tumor ADC were significantly associated with insignificant cancer on univariate analysis (P < 0.05). However, multivariate analysis indicated tumor ADC (odds ratio [OR] = 4.57, P < 0.001) and PI‐RADS v2 (OR = 3.60, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of insignificant cancer. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) reached 0.803 when PI‐RADS v2 (AUC = 0.747) was combined with tumor ADC (AUC = 0.786). Data Conclusion The PI‐RADS v2 together with tumor ADC may be a useful marker for predicting patients with insignificant PCa when considering AS. Level of Evidence: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1072–1079.