Clinical experience with active surveillance protocol using regular magnetic resonance imaging instead of regular repeat biopsy for monitoring: A study at a high-volume center in Korea

• Main Authors: Hyun Kyu Ahn, Kwang Suk Lee, Kyo Chul Koo, Byung Ha Chung
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-06-01
• Series: Prostate International
• Subjects: Active surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287888220300751

Background: Here, we report the experience of a multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based active surveillance (AS) protocol that did not include performing a repeat biopsy after the diagnosis of prostate cancer by prostate biopsy or transurethral resection of prostate. Methods: From January 2010 to December 2017, we reviewed 193 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who were eligible for AS. The patients were divided into AS group (n = 122) and definitive treatment group (n = 71) based on initial treatment. Disease progression was defined as a remarkable change in MRI findings. To confirm the stability of protocol, we compared the clinicopathological characteristics of patients who initially underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) (n = 58) and RP after termination of AS (n = 20). Results: Among patients who initially selected AS (median adherence duration = 31.4 months), 70 (57.3%) subsequently changed their treatment options. Disease progression (n = 30) was the main cause for termination. No significant differences were found in the clinicopathologic characteristics at initial diagnosis and pathologic outcomes between patients who initially underwent RP and those who chose RP after termination of AS. In a comparative analysis of diagnostic methods, the patients with incidental prostate cancer by transurethral resection of prostate had higher age, lower prostate-specific antigen level and density, as well as longer AS adherence duration and follow-up duration compared with those diagnosed by prostate biopsy. Conclusions: Our AS monitoring protocol, which depends on MRI instead of regular repeat biopsy, was feasible. Patients with incidental prostate cancer continued AS more compared with patients diagnosed by prostate biopsy.