Defining Prostate Cancer at Favorable Intermediate Risk: The Potential Utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Genomic Tests.
Authors of this article are:
Falagario UG, Beksac AT, Martini A, Cumarasamy S, Gupta A, Prasad S, Thulasidass H, Shah QN, Jayaratna I, Lewis S, Rastinehad AR, Taouli B, Cormio L, Carrieri G, Tewari AK.
A summary of the article is shown below:
PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic biomarkers might help further define patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer which could safely be considered suitable for active surveillance.MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our institutional database we identified 509 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and a postoperative Decipher® prostate cancer test. According to the NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) risk stratification 125 men had favorable intermediate and 171 had unfavorable intermediate risk disease. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were done to test the utility of different variables in predicting adverse pathology, defined as Gleason Grade Group greater than 2, pT3b or pN1.RESULTS: On univariable analysis favorable intermediate risk, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the prostate cancer test significantly predicted adverse pathology. On multivariable analysis favorable intermediate risk and the prostate cancer test maintained independent predictive value while multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.059). The 19 patients at favorable intermediate risk with high genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly higher than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (42.1% vs 39.8%, p = 0.56). Those at low genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (7.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.84). The 31 patients at favorable intermediate risk but at high multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (25.8% vs 39.8%, p = 0.14). Those at low multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (8.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.89).CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the Decipher test allowed us to better define the risk of adverse pathology in patients at favorable intermediate risk who were diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Check out the article’s website on Pubmed for more information:
This article is a good source of information and a good way to become familiar with topics such as: Aged;Biomarkers, Tumor;Biopsy, Large-Core Needle;Gene Expression Profiling;Humans;Magnetic Resonance Imaging;Male;Middle Aged;Neoplasm Grading;Predictive Value of Tests;Prospective Studies;Prostate;Prostatectomy;Prostatic Neoplasms;Retrospective Studies;Risk Assessment.
New Chemicals from MOLECULAR DEPOT
New Proteins from MOLECULAR DEPOT
New Antibodies from MOLECULAR DEPOT
New Research Kits from MOLECULAR DEPOT