Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship between non-suspicious MRI and insignificant prostate cancer: results from a monocentric study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess whether non-suspicious multiparametric magnetic-resonance imaging (mpMRI) was associated with no cancer or indolent prostate cancer (PCa) in subsequent biopsies.

Patients and methods

Retrospective analyses of a prospective database were conducted between 2009 and 2013. It included men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and/or prostate-specific antigen levels <20 ng/mL and a non-suspicious multiparametric MRI (Likert score <3). Participants underwent a systematic 12-extended-core biopsy ultrasound protocol (STD). Indolent PCa was defined as a single core with a Gleason score of 6 (3 + 3) and a cancer-core length of ≤4 mm.

Results

Seventy-eight patients with a negative MRI were included in the study; median patient age was 62 years (IQR 50–74). Median PSA level was 7.15 ng/mL, with a median PSA density of 0.15. The digital rectal examination was abnormal in eight cases. From MRI, 53 patients were Likert 2, 25 patients were Likert 1, and median prostate volume was 56.5 mL. From biopsies, no cancer was found in 92.3 % (n = 72). PCa was histologically confirmed in six patients (7.7 %): five cases were indolent (as defined above); only one patient had a cancer core of 5 mm long, with a Gleason score of 6 (3 + 3). All six patients were within the low-risk group according to the D’Amico classification.

Conclusion

Men with non-suspicious mpMRI are likely to have no or indolent PCa in subsequent biopsies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A et al (2013) Early detection of prostate cancer: European Association of Urology recommendation. Eur Urol 64(3):347–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mozer P et al (2015) First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 115(1):50–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ridout AJ et al (2014) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in defining a biopsy strategy for detection of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 21(1):5–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barentsz JO et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Janssoone T et al (2011) Biopsym: a learning environment for trans-rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies. Stud Health Technol Inform 163:242–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore CM et al (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 64(4):544–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Puech P et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US–MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268(2):461–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study. Urol Oncol 31(4):448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Renard-Penna R et al (2015) Prostate Imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275(2):458–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickinson L et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Portalez D et al (2012) Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 62(6):986–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Baumann M et al (2012) Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal 16(3):562–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson JE et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 192(1):67–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haffner J et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 108(8 Pt 2):E171–E178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C (2006) How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 50(6):1163–1174 (discussion 1175)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abd-Alazeez M et al (2014) The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level–can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 32(1):45e17–45e22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolters T et al (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185(1):121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Itatani R et al (2014) Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1740–1745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Visschere PJ et al (2015) What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3894-x

  21. Arumainayagam N et al (2013) Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268(3):761–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tanimoto A et al (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(1):146–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Numao N et al (2013) Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 190(2):502–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim JY et al (2014) Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology 271(2):435–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wefer AE et al (2000) Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 164(2):400–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schoots IG et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67(4):627–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cussenot O et al (2014) Secondary chemoprevention of localized prostate cancer by short-term androgen deprivation to select indolent tumors suitable for active surveillance: a prospective pilot phase II study. World J Urol 32(2):545–550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Drouin SJ et al (2012) Clinical characteristics and pathologic findings in patients eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 30(4):402–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ilic D et al (2013) Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Glaser AP, Novakovic K, Helfand BT (2012) The impact of prostate biopsy on urinary symptoms, erectile function, and anxiety. Curr Urol Rep 13(6):447–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahmed HU et al (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6(4):197–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contribution

Raphaële Renard-Penna: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; Morgan Roupret: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; Eva Compérat: data collection or management; François Rozet: data collection or management; Benjamin Granger: data collection or management, data analysis; Johann Barkatz: data collection or management; Marc-Olivier Bitker: data collection or management; Olivier Lucidarme: data collection or management, data analysis; Olivier Cussenot: data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; Pierre Mozer: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Department of Radiology, AP-HP, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, 83 Bvd Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Raphaële Renard-Penna & Olivier Lucidarme

  2. Academic Department of Urology, AP-HP, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, 75013, Paris, France

    Morgan Roupret, Johann Barkatz, Marc Olivier Bitker & Pierre Mozer

  3. Academic Department of Pathology, AP-HP, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, 75013, Paris, France

    Eva Compérat

  4. Urology Department, Montsouris Institute, 75014, Paris, France

    François Rozet

  5. Academic Department of Biostatistics, Public Health and Medical Information, AP-HP, Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, 75013, Paris, France

    Benjamin Granger

  6. Academic Department of Urology, AP-HP, Hopital Tenon, 75020, Paris, France

    Olivier Cussenot

  7. GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, UPMC Univ Paris 06, 75005, Paris, France

    Raphaële Renard-Penna, Morgan Roupret, Eva Compérat, Olivier Cussenot & Pierre Mozer

Authors
  1. Raphaële Renard-Penna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morgan Roupret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Compérat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. François Rozet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Granger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Johann Barkatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marc Olivier Bitker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olivier Lucidarme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Olivier Cussenot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pierre Mozer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raphaële Renard-Penna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standard

Ethical standards in agreement with French laws and local ethical committee (University Paris 6, APHP).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Renard-Penna, R., Roupret, M., Compérat, E. et al. Relationship between non-suspicious MRI and insignificant prostate cancer: results from a monocentric study. World J Urol 34, 673–678 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1685-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1685-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation