Advanced search
Publication Cover
Scandinavian Journal of Urology Volume 54, 2020 - Issue 4
Journal homepage
1,270
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

The value of a first MRI and targeted biopsies after several years of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer – results from the SAMS trial

Stefan CarlssonUrology Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden;Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery (MMKa), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenCorrespondence[email protected]
,
Ola BrattDepartment of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
,
Dushanka KristianssonFarsta Urology Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden
&
Fredrik JäderlingDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery (MMKa), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden;Radiology Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, SwedenORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-7328
ORCID Icon
Pages 318-322 | Received 10 Aug 2019, Accepted 24 Jun 2020, Published online: 14 Jul 2020

References

  • Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–277.
  • 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(4):618–629.
  • Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al.; PRIAS study group. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–960.
  • Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, et al. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2274–2278.
  • Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, et al. Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(2):116–120.
  • Bratt O, Carlsson S, Holmberg E, et al. The Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS): a randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2013;47(5):347–355.
  • Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Grading Committee, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252.
  • Cancer NCCf. NICE guidelines prostate cancer 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/evidence/full-guideline-191710765
  • Prostatacancer – Nationellt Vårdprogram 2019. Available from: https://www.cancercentrum.se/globalassets/cancerdiagnoser/prostatacancer/vardprogram/nationellt-vardprogram-prostatacancer.pdf
  • Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):300–309.
  • Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–469.
  • Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):17 e1–e7.
  • Grönberg H, Eklund M, Picker W, et al. Prostate cancer diagnostics using a combination of the Stockholm3 blood test and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):722–728.
  • Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):627–636.
  • Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, et.al. Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):311–317.
  • Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1231–1236.
  • Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E694–700.
  • Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):724–730.
  • Schoots IG, Osses DF, Drost FH, et al. Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):132–144.
  • Bhat NR, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-defined prostate-specific antigen density significantly improves the risk prediction for clinically significant prostate cancer on. Biopsy Urol. 2019;126:152–157.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.