Role of MRI in the Risk Assessment of Primary Prostate Cancer

Wibmer, Andreas G.; Verma, Sadhna; Vargas, Hebert Alberto

doi:10.1097/rmr.0000000000000081

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, prostate risk stratification relies on clinical examination, biopsy data (e.g., Gleason grade), and serological markers (e.g., prostate-specific antigen) [136]. Genomic [137] and quantitative MRI-derived imaging biomarkers [138] have been shown to be helpful, not only in risk stratification, but also in detection [139,140], staging [141], characterization [142][143][144][145], and treatment planning and follow-up [146,147], thus setting the stage for radiogenomic studies.…”

Section: Prostatementioning

confidence: 99%

Combining molecular and imaging metrics in cancer: radiogenomics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Radiogenomics is the extension of radiomics through the combination of genetic and radiomic data. Because genetic testing remains expensive, invasive, and time-consuming, and thus unavailable for all patients, radiogenomics may play an important role in providing accurate imaging surrogates which are correlated with genetic expression, thereby serving as a substitute for genetic testing. Main body: In this article, we define the meaning of radiogenomics and the difference between radiomics and radiogenomics. We provide an up-to-date review of the radiomics and radiogenomics literature in oncology, focusing on breast, brain, gynecological, liver, kidney, prostate and lung malignancies. We also discuss the current challenges to radiogenomics analysis. Conclusion: Radiomics and radiogenomics are promising to increase precision in diagnosis, assessment of prognosis, and prediction of treatment response, providing valuable information for patient care throughout the course of the disease, given that this information is easily obtainable with imaging. Larger prospective studies and standardization will be needed to define relevant imaging biomarkers before they can be implemented into the clinical workflow.

show abstract

Section: Prostatementioning

confidence: 99%

Combining molecular and imaging metrics in cancer: radiogenomics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the use of PreORT for PCa should remain investigational, and future studies must aim to determine the optimal dose schedule and delivery techniques. identification of patients at high-risk of harbouring adverse pathological features 16,17 , enhance tumor delineation 17 , and improve regional and distant staging [18][19][20] . In turn, these advances could enable tailored PreORT approaches based on overall and anatomically-mapped risk quantifications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Phase 1 Pilot Study of Preoperative Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Toxicity and Oncologic Outcomes

Glicksman

Sanmamed

Thoms

et al. 2019

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) improves disease control in various cancers, and has become an established oncologic treatment strategy. During 2001-2004, we conducted a phase I pilot study assessing the role of short-course pre-operative RT (PreORT) for men with unfavourable intermediate-and high-risk localized prostate cancer. Herein, we present long-term follow-up toxicity and oncologic outcomes. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients had histologically proven prostate cancer, cT1-T2N0M0 disease, PSA >15-35 ng/ml regardless of Gleason score, or PSA 10-15 ng/ml with Gleason score ≥7. Patients received 25 Gy in five consecutive daily fractions (5 Gy per fraction) to the prostate-only, followed by radical prostatectomy within 14 days after RT completion. Primary outcomes were intraoperative morbidity, and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities. Results: In total, 15 patients were enrolled; 14 patients completed PreORT followed by radical prostatectomy, which also included bilateral lymph node dissections in 13 cases. Median followup was 12.2 years (range 6.7-16.3 years). Late GU toxicity was common, with 2 patients (13.3%) experiencing G2 toxicity, and 6 patients (40%) G3 toxicity. There were no patients with G4-5 late GU toxicity. Late GI toxicity was infrequent, with only 1 patient (6.7%) experiencing transient G2 proctitis. At last follow-up, 8 (53.3%) and 6 (40%) patients experienced biochemical and metastatic disease recurrence, respectively. Conclusion:

show abstract

“…Thus, one of the most urgent objectives in prostate cancer research is to differentiate these populations as early as possible, allowing for individualized risk‐adapted management. While risk stratification has been traditionally based on clinical examination, biopsy data (eg, Gleason grade), and serological markers (eg, prostate‐specific antigen), more recently, genomic and MRI‐derived imaging biomarkers have been incorporated into the assessment of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.…”

Section: Prostatementioning

confidence: 99%