Role and Evolution of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance in the Detection of Prostate Cancer.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54212/27068048.v8i1.25Keywords:
Prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, diagnosisAbstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer is currently the second most common cause of death from cancer in men in the Western world.
Objective: To carry out a bibliographic review to describe the role and evolution of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer.
Material and Method: A bibliographic review was carried out through Medline and Cochrane type scientific search engines, scientific societies and International journals of Urology and Radiology. The recommendations of the 2020 American and European Guidelines on the subject were included. Lastly, a brief interview with expert urologist physicians from the countries of Central America and the Caribbean, to present their experience and use of MPRM in the detection of prostate cancer.
Results: mpMRI has become one of the best imaging techniques for diagnosing prostate cancer. In addition, to have the most favorable diagnostic precision in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, the guidelines of the expert groups are variable.
Conclusion: Determining the indicated moment to perform an MPRM if before or after the first negative biopsy, will depend on the appropriate urological evaluation and the clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of each patient.
Central American countries, day after day, come to the forefront with imaging techniques, using RM-mp to detect prostate cancer.
Downloads
References
Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. European journal of cancer 2015;51:1164-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002
Paul E Goss, Brittany L Lee, Tanja Badovinac-Crnjevic et al. Planning cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 391–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70048-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70111-6
Evans SM, Millar JL, Davis ID, et al. Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011. Med J Aust 2013;198:540–545. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.11241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.11241
Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, et al Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170:21-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095025.03331.c6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095025.03331.c6
Hashim U Ahmed*, Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily*, Louise C Brown* et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study Lancet 2017; 389: 815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Siddiqui M, Rais-Bararami s, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. Biopsia de próstata dirigida por fusión por resonancia magnética y ecografía en una cohorte consecutiva de hombres sin biopsia previa: reducción de la sobredetección a través de una estratificación de riesgo mejorada. J Urol. 2015; 194: 1601-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.078
Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. La curva de aprendizaje institucional de la resonancia magnética-fusión por ultrasonido biopsia de próstata dirigida: mejoras temporales en la detección del cáncer en 4 años. J Urol. 2018; 200: 1022-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.012
Chung DY, Koh DH, Goh HJ y col. Importancia clínica y predictores del resultado oncológico después de la prostatectomía radical para el cáncer de próstata invisible en la RM multiparamétrica. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 1057. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4955-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4955-8
Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, et al. Rentabilidad de la resonancia magnética y la biopsia de fusión dirigida para la detección temprana del cáncer de próstata. BJU Int. 2018; 122: 5-8.
Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E et al.Optimización del diagnóstico de cáncer de próstata en la era de las imágenes por resonancia magnética multiparamétrica: un análisis de costo-efectividad basado en el estudio de imágenes de próstata MR (PROMIS). Eur Urol.2018; 73: 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018
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.(Update March 2020) Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
Parker C. Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004; 5: 101-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01384-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01384-1
Haider M.A., Van der Kwast T.H., Tanguay, et al. Combined T2 -weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Aug; 189(2): 323-328. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2211
Morgan V.A., Kyriazi Sl, Ashley S.E., et al. Evaluation of the potential of diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate detection. Acta Radiol. 2007 Jul; 48(6): 695-703. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850701349257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850701349257
Dickinson, L., Ahmed, HU, Allen, C., et al. Imágenes por resonancia magnética para la detección, localización y caracterización del cáncer de próstata: recomendaciones de una reunión de consenso europeo. European Urology, 2011 59 (4), 477–494
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use.Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038
Barrett, T., Turkbey, B. y Choyke, PL (2015).PI-RADS versión 2: lo que necesita saber. Radiología clínica 2015;70 (11):1165-1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.093
Ismail Baris Turkbey, MD; Daniel J. Margolis, MD; Andrew B. Rosenkrantz et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019,76 (3):340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Epstein JJ, Egevad L, Amin MB, 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; 40:244. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al.Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(4):592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010
Hashim U Ahmed*, Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily*, Louise C Brown* et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study Lancet 2017; 389: 815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, Sadhna Verma, Peter Choyke et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. The Journal of Urology. 2016 Vol. 196, 1613-1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Carlos Figueroa Lémus, Erick Stanley Petersen Juárez
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.