Skip to main content
Log in

Incidental findings on multiparametric MRI performed for evaluation of prostate cancer

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and MRI/Ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy are relatively new techniques for improved detection, staging, and active surveillance of prostate cancer (PCa). As with all imaging modalities, MRI reveals incidental findings (IFs) which carry the risk of increased cost, patient anxiety, and iatrogenic morbidity due to workup of IFs. Herein, we report the IFs from 684 MRIs for evaluation of PCa and consider their characteristics and clinical significance.

Methods

Patients underwent mp-MRI prostate protocol incorporating triplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI as well as a post-contrast abdominopelvic MRI with the primary indication of detection or evaluation of PCa. A total of 684 consecutive prostate MRI reports performed in a series of 580 patients were reviewed. All extraprostatic findings reported were logged and then categorized by organ system and potential clinical significance.

Results

There were 349 true IFs found in 233 (40%) of the 580 patients. One hundred nineteen additional extraprostatic findings were unsuspected but directly related to PCa staging, while the 349 IFs were unrelated and thus truly incidental beyond study indication. While the majority of true IFs were non-urologic, only 6.6% of IFs were considered clinically significant, non-urologic findings, and more than a third of MRI reports had urologic IFs not related to PCa.

Conclusions

Rates of incidental findings on prostate indication MRI are similar to other abdominopelvic imaging studies. However, only 6.6% of the IFs were considered to be clinically significant non-urologic findings. Further investigations are needed to assess downstream workup of these IFs and resulting costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AMH:

asymptomatic microscopic hematuria

AS:

active surveillance

CT:

computed tomography

DRE:

digital rectal examination

IF:

incidental finding

MRI:

magnetic resonance imaging

mp-MRI:

multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PCa:

prostate cancer

PSA:

prostate-specific antigen

TRUS:

transrectal ultrasound

US:

ultrasound

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 67:7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. (2013) Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. (2012) Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int 110:E694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Muthigi A, Sidana A, George AK, et al. (2016) Midline lesions of the prostate: role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and implications in Gleason risk stratification. Int Urol Nephrol 48:1445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM, et al. (2015) Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging 40:2557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, et al. (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 114:E43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muthigi A, Sidana A, George AK, et al. (2017) Current beliefs and practice patterns among urologists regarding prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol 35(32):e1

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J, McIntosh JH (1998) The outcomes for patients with incidental lesions: serendipitous or iatrogenic? AJR 171:1193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lai WS, Ellenburg J, Lockhart ME, et al. (2016) Assessing the costs of extraurinary findings of computed tomography urogram in the evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. Urology 95:34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan AE, Berland LL, Ananyev SS, et al. (2015) Extraurinary incidental findings on CT for hematuria: the radiologist’s role and downstream cost analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yee J, Kumar NN, Godara S, et al. (2005) Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. Radiology 236:519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Priola AM, Priola SM, Giaj-Levra M, et al. (2013) Clinical implications and added costs of incidental findings in an early detection study of lung cancer by using low-dose spiral computed tomography. Clin Lung Cancer 14:139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. MacHaalany J, Yam Y, Ruddy TD, et al. (2009) Potential clinical and economic consequences of noncardiac incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography. JACC 54:1533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I (2010) Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 83:276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. (2000) Incidental extracolonic findings at CT conolonography. Radiology 215:353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gleucker TM, Johnson CD, Wilson LA, et al. (2003) Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology 124:911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee CI, Tsai EB, Sigal BM, et al. (2010) Incidental extracardiac findings at coronary CT: clinical and economic impact. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1531

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, et al. (2017) Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer 123:1941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. (2006) Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 238:597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Feng T, Koopman S, Kim HL (2015) Impact of post prostate biopsy hemorrhage on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol 22:5

    Google Scholar 

  24. Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW, et al. (2017) Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 35:695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soroush Rais-Bahrami.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

Soroush Rais-Bahrami and Jeffrey W. Nix are consultants for Philips/InVivo Corp. Rachael L. Sherrer, Win Shun Lai, and John V. Thomas have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sherrer, R.L., Lai, W.S., Thomas, J.V. et al. Incidental findings on multiparametric MRI performed for evaluation of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 43, 696–701 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1237-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1237-x

Keywords

Navigation