AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Oct 2017AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer Pat F. Fulgham, Daniel B. Rukstalis, Ismail Baris Turkbey, Jonathan N. Rubenstein, Samir Taneja, Peter R. Carroll, Peter A. Pinto, Marc A. Bjurlin, and Scott Eggener Pat F. FulghamPat F. Fulgham Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, Texas , Daniel B. RukstalisDaniel B. Rukstalis Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina , Ismail Baris TurkbeyIsmail Baris Turkbey National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland , Jonathan N. RubensteinJonathan N. Rubenstein Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore, Maryland , Samir TanejaSamir Taneja NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , Peter R. CarrollPeter R. Carroll University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calfornia , Peter A. PintoPeter A. Pinto National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland , Marc A. BjurlinMarc A. Bjurlin NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , and Scott EggenerScott Eggener The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.101AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus. Results: At this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer. Conclusions: Although it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. References 1 : Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging2017; 45: 579. Google Scholar 2 : Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom Imaging2015; 40: 134. Google Scholar 3 : PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version. Eur Urol2016; 69: 16. Google Scholar 4 : Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MRI imaging at 3 T—comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology2007; 244: 184. Google Scholar 5 : Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging2014; 39: 1443. Google Scholar 6 : Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3.0T: comparison of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI and phased-array coil (PAC) MRI—the impact of SNR on ADC measurement. Eur J Radiol2013; 82: e515. Google Scholar 7 : 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 Urol2013; 190: 1728. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a serious adverse reaction to gadolinium—1997-2006-2016. Part 1. Acta Radiol2016; 57: 515. Google Scholar 9 : Impacts of a population-based prostate cancer screening programme on excess total mortality rates in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen2013; 20: 33. Google Scholar 10 : Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet2014; 384: 2027. Google Scholar 11 : Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol2015; 68: 1045. Google Scholar 12 : Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int2011; 108: E171. Google Scholar 13 : Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol2013; 189: 493. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol2014; 66: 22. Google Scholar 15 : Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol2015; 194: 1601. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol2016; 196: 1613. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol2014; 32: 903. Google Scholar 18 : The role of conservative management in localized prostate cancer. Cancer1994; 74: 2178. Google Scholar 19 : Is transperineal prostate biopsy more accurate than transrectal biopsy in determining final Gleason score and clinical risk category? A comparative analysis. BJU Int2015; 116: 26. Google Scholar 20 : Diagnostic performance of initial transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate gland. Am J Clin Oncol2015; 38: 300. Google Scholar 21 : Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol2015; 67: 627. Google Scholar 22 : Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol2016; 69: 1028. Google Scholar 23 : Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations—a report of a European School of Oncology task force. Eur Urol2017; 71: 648. Google Scholar © 2017 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byGoldberg H, Ahmad A, Chandrasekar T, Klotz L, Emberton M, Haider M, Taneja S, Arora K, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Perlis N, Tyson M, Klaassen Z and Wallis C (2019) Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Informed Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy Naïve Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 6, (1085-1093), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020.Bjurlin M, Carroll P, Eggener S, Fulgham P, Margolis D, Pinto P, Rosenkrantz A, Rubenstein J, Rukstalis D, Taneja S and Turkbey B (2019) Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 4, (706-712), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020.Taneja S (2019) Re: Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for Extracapsular Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Patients with Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 2, (253-254), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020.Hanna N, Wszolek M, Mojtahed A, Nicaise E, Wu B, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt F, Salari K, Dahl D, Blute M, Harisinghani M and Feldman A (2019) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Improves but Does Not Replace Standard Template Biopsy for the Detection of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 202, NO. 5, (944-951), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019.Van Kuiken M, Blackwell R, Bisanz B, Joyce C, Yacoub J, Shea S, Goldberg A, Quek M, Flanigan R and Gupta G (2018) Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Specific Antigen Density and PI-RADS™ Score in Predicting Up Staging in Men on Active SurveillanceUrology Practice, VOL. 6, NO. 2, (117-122), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019.Govers T, Caba L and Resnick M (2018) Cost-Effectiveness of Urinary Biomarker Panel in Prostate Cancer Risk AssessmentJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 6, (1221-1226), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018.Godtman R, Schafferer M, Pihl C, Stranne J and Hugosson J (2018) Long-Term Outcomes after Deferred Radical Prostatectomy in Men Initially Treated with Active SurveillanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 4, (779-785), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018.Taneja S (2018) Re: Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS)Journal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 6, (1397-1398), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018.Smith J (2017) This Month in Adult UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 4, (715-716), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017. Volume 198Issue 4October 2017Page: 832-838Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsprostatic neoplasmsimage-guided biopsymagnetic resonance imagingearly detection of cancerMetricsAuthor Information Pat F. Fulgham Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Daniel B. Rukstalis Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina More articles by this author Ismail Baris Turkbey National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Jonathan N. Rubenstein Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore, Maryland More articles by this author Samir Taneja NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Peter R. Carroll University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calfornia More articles by this author Peter A. Pinto National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Marc A. Bjurlin NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York More articles by this author Scott Eggener The University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...