MR Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening and Active Surveillance

  • Sasha C. Druskin
    James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 134, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Katarzyna J. Macura
    Corresponding author.
    James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Marburg 134, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA

    Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 05, 2017DOI:


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribers receive full online access to your subscription and archive of back issues up to and including 2002.

      Content published before 2002 is available via pay-per-view purchase only.


      Subscribe to Radiologic Clinics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Loeb S.
        • Bjurlin M.A.
        • Nicholson J.
        • et al.
        Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 1046-1055
        • Moyer V.A.
        U.S. preventive services task force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 120-134
        • Hugosson J.
        • Carlsson S.
        • Aus G.
        • et al.
        Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 725-732
        • Schröder F.H.
        • Hugosson J.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • et al.
        Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.
        Lancet. 2014; 384: 2027-2035
        • Catalona W.J.
        • Southwick P.C.
        • Slawin K.M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging.
        Urology. 2000; 56: 255-260
        • Thompson I.M.
        • Pauler D.K.
        • Goodman P.J.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2239-2246
        • Godtman R.A.
        • Holmberg E.
        • Khatami A.
        • et al.
        Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 101-107
        • Popiolek M.
        • Rider J.R.
        • Andrén O.
        • et al.
        Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 428-435
        • Catalona W.J.
        • Partin A.W.
        • Sanda M.G.
        • et al.
        A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 1650-1655
        • Tosoian J.J.
        • Druskin S.C.
        • Andreas D.
        • et al.
        Prostate health index density improves detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2017; 120: 793-798
        • Vedder M.M.
        • de Bekker-Grob E.W.
        • Lilja H.G.
        • et al.
        The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 1109-1115
        • Ma T.M.
        • Tosoian J.J.
        • Schaeffer E.M.
        • et al.
        The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 174-180
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • El-Shater Bosaily A.
        • Brown L.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Fütterer J.J.
        • Briganti A.
        • De Visschere P.
        • et al.
        Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 1045-1053
        • Grenabo Bergdahl A.
        • Wilderäng U.
        • Aus G.
        • et al.
        Role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a pilot study within the Göteborg randomised screening trial.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 566-573
        • Thompson J.E.
        • Moses D.
        • Shnier R.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 67-74
        • Pokorny M.R.
        • de Rooij M.
        • Duncan E.
        • et al.
        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 Urol. 2014; 66: 22-29
        • Wysock J.S.
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • Zattoni F.
        • et al.
        Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric prostate MRI on 12 core biopsy results.
        BJU Int. 2016; 118: 515-520
        • Tosoian J.J.
        • Carter H.B.
        • Lepor A.
        • et al.
        Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.
        Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13: 205-215
      1. Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology-prostate cancer (2.2017). Available at: Accessed April 10, 2017.

      2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer - 2016. Available at: Accessed January 13, 2017.

        • Ward J.F.
        • Eggener S.E.
        Active surveillance monitoring: the role of novel biomarkers and imaging.
        Asian J Androl. 2015; 17 ([discussion:883]): 882-884
        • Schoots I.G.
        • Petrides N.
        • Giganti F.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 627-636
        • Radtke J.P.
        • Kuru T.H.
        • Bonekamp D.
        • et al.
        Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016; 19: 283-291
        • Pepe P.
        • Garufi A.
        • Priolo G.
        • et al.
        Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance?.
        World J Urol. 2016; 34: 1249-1253
        • Almeida G.L.
        • Petralia G.
        • Ferro M.
        • et al.
        Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance image and PIRADS score in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance according PRIAS criteria.
        Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2016; 96: 459-469
        • Porpiglia F.
        • Cantiello F.
        • De Luca S.
        • et al.
        In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance.
        BJU Int. 2016; 118: 527-534
        • Ouzzane A.
        • Renard-Penna R.
        • Marliere F.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies.
        The J Urol. 2015; 194: 350-356
        • Kim T.H.
        • Jeong J.Y.
        • Lee S.W.
        • et al.
        Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 1786-1792
        • Dianat S.S.
        • Carter H.B.
        • Pienta K.J.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 147-153
        • Ahmed H.
        • Emberton M.
        Focal therapy for prostate cancer.
        in: Wein A. Kavoussi L. Partin A.W. Campbell-Walsh urology. 11th edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam2015: 2712
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Feng Z.
        • Trock B.J.
        • et al.
        Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 1019-1024
        • Ouzzane A.
        • Puech P.
        • Lemaitre L.
        • et al.
        Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 1356-1362
        • Walton-Diaz A.
        • Shakir N.A.
        • George A.K.
        • et al.
        Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance.
        Urol Oncol. 2015; 33 (202.e1–7)
        • Felker E.R.
        • Wu J.
        • Natarajan S.
        • et al.
        Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1421-1427
        • Recabal P.
        • Assel M.
        • Sjoberg D.D.
        • et al.
        The efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in risk classification for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 374-381
        • Radtke J.P.
        • Schwab C.
        • Wolf M.B.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 846-853
        • de Rooij M.
        • Hamoen E.H.J.
        • Witjes J.A.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 233-245
        • Somford D.M.
        • Hamoen E.H.
        • Fütterer J.J.
        • et al.
        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 Urol. 2013; 190: 1728-1734
        • Gupta R.T.
        • Faridi K.F.
        • Singh A.A.
        • et al.
        Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 1292-1299
      3. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. Available at: Published 2016. Accessed November 16, 2016.

      4. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Cardiff (UK): National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK); 2014 Jan. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 175.). Available at: Accessed March 15, 2017.

        • Keegan K.A.
        • Dall’Era M.A.
        • Durbin-Johnson B.
        • et al.
        Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 3512-3518
        • Laviana A.A.
        • Ilg A.M.
        • Veruttipong D.
        • et al.
        Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 447-455
        • Gordon L.G.
        • James R.
        • Tuffaha H.W.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of multiparametric MRI with increased active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 198: 540
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Truong H.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • et al.
        Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance.
        The J Urol. 2015; 193: 1943-1949
        • Tosoian J.J.
        • Druskin S.C.
        • Andreas D.
        • et al.
        Use of the prostate health index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 20: 228-233
        • Gnanapragasam V.J.
        • Burling K.
        • George A.
        • et al.
        The prostate health index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population.
        Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 35364
        • Johnston E.
        • Pye H.
        • Bonet-Carne E.
        • et al.
        INNOVATE: a prospective cohort study combining serum and urinary biomarkers with novel diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction and characterization of prostate cancer.
        BMC Cancer. 2016; 16: 816
        • Maurer T.
        • Eiber M.
        • Schwaiger M.
        • et al.
        Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management.
        Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13: 226-235
        • Lindenberg L.
        • Ahlman M.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Advancement of MR and PET/MR in prostate cancer.
        Semin Nucl Med. 2016; 46: 536-543