Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2014

MRI en active surveillance voor laagrisicoprostaatkanker

Auteurs: dr. R.C.N. van den Bergh, dr. R.P. Meijer, dr. S.W. Heijmink, dr. H.G. van der Poel

Gepubliceerd in: Tijdschrift voor Urologie | Uitgave 8/2014

Samenvatting

De methoden voor de risico-inschatting van prostaatcarcinoom dienen te worden verbeterd. Dit reviewartikel bespreekt 15 artikelen waarin de waarde van de MRI in een active surveillance (AS) situatie werd geanalyseerd. Bij patiënten met laagrisicoziekte is de MRI ook meestal niet-verdacht, wat van nut zou kunnen zijn bij AS-selectie en follow-up. Hoogrisicoziekte is echter niet altijd op een MRI te zien. De plaats van de MRI in de diagnostiek en behandeling van prostaatcarcinoom zal nog verder moeten worden bepaald.

vorige artikel Het niet-spierinvasieve blaascarcinoom: een retrospectieve kwaliteitscontrolestudie

volgende artikel Case reports. Niet voor één fistel te vangen. Robotgeassisteerde laparoscopische repair van vesicovaginale fistels

Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W et al (2012) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 156(8):591–595PubMedCrossRef

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent-Update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137PubMedCrossRef

Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK et al (2008) Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 113(8):2068–2072PubMedCrossRef

Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS (2012) Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 62(3):462–468PubMedCrossRef

Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE et al (2010) Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(13):950–958PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M et al (2013) The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(Suppl 2):6–20PubMedCrossRef

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e100010–0CrossRef

Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH et al. Tumor Lesion Diameter on Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Could Help Predict Insignificant Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: Preliminary Analysis. J Urol. 2013

Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE et al (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71(3 Suppl):933–938PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH et al (2013) Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol 43(5):553–558PubMedCrossRef

11.

Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ et al (2012) Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 30(3):301–305PubMedCrossRef

12.

Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O et al (2013) Prostate Cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268(1):144–152PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

13.

Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int 108(4):513–517PubMedCrossRef

14.

Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188(5):1732–1738PubMedCrossRef

15.

Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE et al (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256(1):176–183PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013

17.

Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P et al (2013) Multiparametric magnetic Resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111(7):1037–1045PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Vasarainen H, Lahdensuo K, Savolainen R, Ruutu M, Taari K, Rannikko A Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance one year after diagnosis and before repeat biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2013

19.

Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N et al (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187(4):1247–1252PubMedCrossRef

20.

Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC et al (2008) rostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 247(2):444–450PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

21.

As NJ van, Souza NM de, Riches SF et al (2009) A study of diffusionweighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 56(6):981–987PubMedCrossRef

22.

Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al (2013) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 48(3):152–157PubMedCrossRef

23.

Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 84(997):31–37PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM et al (2014) Value of 3-T Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 49(3):165–172PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Haese A et al. Multicenter european external validation of a prostate health index-based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer at extended biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013 Dec 16.

26.

Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-t MRI imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461PubMedCrossRef

27.

Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T et al (2013) Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 64(3):448–455PubMedCrossRef

28.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS et al (2014) Improving Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: MRI/TRUS Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy. J Urol 191(6):1749–1754PubMedCrossRef

30.

Rooij M de, Crienen S, Witjes JA et al. Cost-effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging and MR-guided Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy in Diagnosing Prostate Cancer: A Modelling Study from a Health Care Perspective. Eur Urol 2013

31.

Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 64(5):713–719PubMedCrossRef

32.

Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190(5):1728–1734PubMedCrossRef

33.

McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE et al (2012) Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at roboticassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology 262(3):874–883PubMedCrossRef

34.

Mohler JLM, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR et al (2012) Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2012 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10(9):1081–1087PubMed

35.

Oncoline. www.oncoline.nl/prostaatcarcinoom. Geraadpleegd juli 2013

36.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: MRI en active surveillance voor laagrisicoprostaatkanker
Auteurs: dr. R.C.N. van den Bergh
dr. R.P. Meijer
dr. S.W. Heijmink
dr. H.G. van der Poel
Publicatiedatum: 01-12-2014
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in: Tijdschrift voor Urologie / Uitgave 8/2014
Print ISSN: 2211-3037
Elektronisch ISSN: 2211-4718
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13629-014-0111-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Samenvatting

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2014

Case reports. Niet voor één fistel te vangen. Robotgeassisteerde laparoscopische repair van vesicovaginale fistels

Editorial

Voorschriften voor inzenders van kopij (verkorte instructie)

Het niet-spierinvasieve blaascarcinoom: een retrospectieve kwaliteitscontrolestudie