Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of presurgical endorectal MRI (eMRI) for local staging before radical prostatectomy (RP) and its influence on neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection during radical prostatectomy.

Patients and methods

A total of 385 patients with histologically proven prostate cancer (PCa) have been included in this retrospective study between 2004 and 2008. All patients underwent preoperative eMRI at 1.5 T before open RP. Staging results by eMRI were compared with the histopathological findings. The presence of positive surgical margins and extent of nerve-sparing procedure were evaluated. Subgroup analysis of low–risk group and intermediate to high-risk group based on D’Amico criteria was conducted.

Results

In 294 (76.4%) patients, pathological stage was correctly predicted, 69 patients (17.9%) were understaged and 22 (5.7%) overstaged. Overall sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for predicting extracapsular extension (ECE) were 41.5, 91.8, 78.0 and 69.0%, respectively. One hundred and fifty-two (48.4%) of the patients classified as stage cT2 by eMRI underwent bilateral NVB sparing, whereas 14 (19.7%) patients with reported ECE underwent bilateral NVB sparing (P < 0.01). Overall positive surgical margin rate was 14.8%. Sensitivity of predicting ECE and positive predictive value were lower in the low-risk group than in the intermediate and high-risk group.

Conclusions

eMRI is effective in predicting extracapsular extension in an intermediate to high-risk group. Preoperative eMRI in patients with low-risk criteria is not recommended as a routine assessment modality. eMRI findings did appear to influence surgical strategy as patients with imaging findings suggesting >cT2 disease were less likely to undergo NVB sparing.

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. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Takriti S et al (2009) The role of conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision of whether to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 43:25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown JA, Rodin DM, Harisinghani M, Dahl DM (2009) Impact of preoperative endorectal MRI stage classification on neurovascular bundle sparing aggressiveness and the radical prostatectomy positive margin rate. Urol Oncol 27:174–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC et al (2004) The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 100:2655–2663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Pelzer A et al (2007) Value of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol 25:351–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Horiguchi A, Nakashima J, Horiguchi Y et al (2003) Prediction of extraprostatic cancer by prostate specific antigen density, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate 56:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang JQ, Loughlin KR, Zou KH, Haker S, Tempany CM (2007) Role of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in treatment of patients with prostate cancer and in determining radical prostatectomy surgical margin status: report of a single surgeon’s practice. Urology. 69:1134–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Masterson TA, Touijer K (2008) The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA 21:371–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L et al (2010) Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer—a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol

  10. Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y et al (2004) Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 64:101–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES, Gomella LG, Chernesky CE, Mitchell DG (1994) Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 193:333–339

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Applegate KE, Tello R, Ying J (2003) Hypothesis testing III: counts and medians. Radiology 228:603–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M et al (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6:197–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, Hartung R, Breul J (2001) Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 87:66–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL (2009) Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1471–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ et al (2005) Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 237:541–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH et al (2007) Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging—initial results. Radiology 245:176–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H et al (2010) Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection—histopathologic correlation. Radiology 255:89–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Amico AV, Schnall M, Whittington R et al (1998) Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease. Urology 51:449–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L et al (2002) Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 224:203–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Miriam Germann for critically proof-reading the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Matthias C. Roethke, Matthias P. Lichy, Michaela Kniess, Matthias K. Werner & Claus D. Claussen

  2. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany

    Matthias C. Roethke & Heinz-Peter Schlemmer

  3. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, Tübingen, Germany

    Arnulf Stenzl & David Schilling

Authors
  1. Matthias C. Roethke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias P. Lichy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Kniess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias K. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claus D. Claussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arnulf Stenzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David Schilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Schilling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roethke, M.C., Lichy, M.P., Kniess, M. et al. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 31, 1111–1116 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0826-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0826-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation