Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI)

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To study the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by readers with different experience, comparing performance with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bmMRI) and with the reference multiparametric (mpMRI).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 68 patients with mpMRI of the prostate at 1.5 Tesla using a 32 phased-array coil. Forty-five patients (cases) underwent radical prostatectomy, whereas 23 (controls) had a negative prostate biopsy and ≥ 2.5 years of negative follow-up. Six observers (two with 1000 cases interpreted, two with 300, two with 100) performed the analysis first with bpMRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in three planes and, after 1 month, with mpMRI, adding dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). The performance was quantified by sensitivity (SNS), specificity (SPC) and area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) procedure.

Results

Concordance within observers of equivalent experience was good (weighted Cohen’s k ≈ 0.7). The two expert readers performed as well in bpMRI as in mpMRI (SNS = 0.91–0.96, AUC = 0.86–0.93; p ≥ 0.10); readers with 300 cases performed well in mpMRI, but significantly worse in bpMR: SNS = 0.58 versus 0.91 (p < 0.0001) and AUC = 0.73 versus 0.86 (p = 0.01); the limited experience of readers with 100 cases showed in mpMRI (SNS = 0.71; AUC = 0.77) and even more in bpMRI (SNS = 0.50; AUC = 0.68).

Conclusion

The study revealed the impact of the readers’ experience when using bpMRI. The bpMRI without contrast media was a valid alternative for expert readers, whereas less experienced ones needed DCE to significantly boost SNS and AUC. Results indicate 700–800 cases as threshold for reliable interpretation with bpMRI.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet Lond Engl 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marra G, Gontero P, Valerio M (2016) Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why Focal Therapy is a step forward. Arch Esp Urol 69:271–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, et al (2011) Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14:232–237. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, et al (2011) Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:664–670. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al (2014) MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur Radiol 24:2582–2589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3276-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al (2015) Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int 115:381–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12639

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, et al (2016) Combined Biparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study in a Biopsy-naive Patient Population. Urology 88:125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.09.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, et al (2015) Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:288–296. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cocozza S, et al (2016) Biparametric 3T Magentic Resonance Imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naïve patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2? Eur J Radiol 85:2269–2274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thestrup KCD, Logager V, Baslev I, et al (2016) Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Radiol Open 5:2058460116663046. https://doi.org/10.1177/2058460116663046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Barth BK, De Visschere PJL, Cornelius A, et al (2017) Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study. Radiology 162020. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162020

  14. De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P, et al (2017) Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA. Clin Radiol 72:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D’Andrea A, et al (2017) Biparametric versus Multiparametric MRI with Non-endorectal Coil at 3T in the Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer. Anticancer Res 37:1263–1271. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11443

  16. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, et al (2017) Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Radiology 285:493–505. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, et al (2017) The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:W92–W100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahmed HU (2009) The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 361:1704–1706. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcibr0905562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Russo F, Regge D, Armando E, et al (2016) Detection of prostate cancer index lesions with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) using whole-mount histological sections as the reference standard. BJU Int 118:84–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41:e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820

  23. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 45:579–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: A Critical Look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1179–1183. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol 90:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Marco Gatti, Riccardo Faletti, Jacopo Giglio, Claudio Berzovini, Francesco Gentile, Francesca Misischi & Paolo Fonio

  2. Urology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Giorgio Calleris, Giancarlo Marra & Paolo Gontero

  3. Pathology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Luca Molinaro & Mauro Papotti

  4. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Laura Bergamasco

Authors
  1. Marco Gatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Faletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giorgio Calleris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacopo Giglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claudio Berzovini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Gentile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giancarlo Marra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francesca Misischi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luca Molinaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Laura Bergamasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Paolo Gontero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Mauro Papotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Paolo Fonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Gatti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gatti, M., Faletti, R., Calleris, G. et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol 44, 1883–1893 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation