Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focal nodular enhancement on DCE MRI of the prostatectomy bed: radiologic-pathologic correlations and prognostic value

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the concordance of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging findings with clinico-pathologic characteristics and their prognostic impact for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent MRI within 1 year after RP between November 2019 and October 2020. DCE findings and their concordance with the presence and location of positive surgical margin (PSM) were assessed using RP specimens. Kaplan–Meier and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic impact of DCE findings for BCR.

Results

Among the 272 men (mean age ± standard deviation, 66.6 ± 7.4 years), focal nodular enhancement was more frequently observed in those with PSM compared to those with negative margin (85.4% versus 14.6%; p < 0.001). The sites of focal nodular enhancement were 72.9% (35/48) concordant with the PSM locations. Focal nodular enhancement was associated with a higher Gleason score, higher preoperative PSA (≥ 10 ng/mL), higher Gleason grade at the surgical margin, and non-limited margin involvement (p = 0.002, 0.006, 0.032, and 0.001, respectively). In patients without BCR at the time of MRI, focal nodular enhancement was associated with a shorter time to BCR (p < 0.001) and a significant factor predicting 1-year BCR in both univariate (odds ratio = 8.4 [95% CI: 2.5–28.3]; p = 0.001) and multivariate (odds ratio = 5.49 [1.56–19.3]; p = 0.008) analyses.

Conclusions

Focal nodular enhancement on post-prostatectomy MRI was associated with adverse clinico-pathologic characteristics of high risk for recurrence and can be a predictor for 1-year BCR in patients undergoing RP.

Key Points

• Focal nodular enhancement (PI-RR DCE score ≥ 4) was 72.9% (35/48) concordant with the site of positive resection margin by radiologic-histologic correlation.

• Focal nodular enhancement (PI-RR DCE score ≥ 4) was associated with higher Gleason score ( ≥ 8), preoperative PSA ( > 10 ng/mL), and Gleason grade 4 or 5 at the surgical margin and non-limited margin involvement (p ≤ 0.032).

• In patients without BCR at the time of MRI, focal nodular enhancement was a significant factor predicting 1-year BCR (odds ratio = 5.49; 95% CI: 1.56–19.3; p = 0.008).

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

Abbreviations

BCR:

Biochemical recurrence

DCE:

Dynamic contrast enhancement

EPE:

Extraprostatic extension

GS:

Gleason score

PI-RR:

Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

PSM:

Positive surgical margin

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

RT:

Radiation treatment

References

  1. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA et al (2005) Risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 294:433–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ (2004) Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: Long-term results. J Urol 172:910–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Artibani W, Porcaro AB, De Marco V, Cerruto MA, Siracusano S (2018) Management of biochemical recurrence after primary curative treatment for prostate cancer: a review. Urol Int 100:251–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tilki D, Chen MH, Wu J et al (2021) Adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy for men at high risk for recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and the risk of death. J Clin Oncol 39:2284–2293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hackman G, Taari K, Tammela TL et al (2019) Randomised trial of adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy versus radical prostatectomy alone in prostate cancer patients with positive margins or extracapsular extension. Eur Urol 76:586–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisansky TM, Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, D'Amico AV, Selvarajah S (2019) Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA guideline amendment 2018-2019. J Urol 202:533–538

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T et al (2012) Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 62:768–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2020) Biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines panel recommendations. Eur Urol Focus 6:231–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N et al (2019) Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 75:967–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA et al (2014) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 65:303–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee W, Lim B, Kyung YS, Kim C-S (2021) Impact of positive surgical margin on biochemical recurrence in localised prostate cancer. Prostate Int 9:151–156

  12. Chapin BF, Nguyen JN, Achim MF et al (2018) Positive margin length and highest Gleason grade of tumor at the margin predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21:221–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Srigley JR (2006) Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:303–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Panebianco V, Villeirs G, Weinreb JC et al (2021) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for local recurrence reporting (PI-RR): international consensus-based guidelines on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.01.003

  15. Liauw SL, Pitroda SP, Eggener SE et al (2013) Evaluation of the prostate bed for local recurrence after radical prostatectomy using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:378–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Linder BJ, Kawashima A, Woodrum DA et al (2014) Early localisation of recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol 21:7283–7289

  17. Couñago F, del Cerro E, Recio M et al (2015) Role of 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging without endorectal coil in the detection of local recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: the radiation oncology point of view. Scand J Urol 49:360–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vadi SK, Singh B, Basher RK et al (2017) 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT complementing the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for providing comprehensive diagnostic workup in prostate cancer patients with suspected relapse following radical prostatectomy. Clin Nucl Med 42:e355–e361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sooriakumaran P, Ploumidis A, Nyberg T et al (2015) The impact of length and location of positive margins in predicting biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. BJU Int 115:106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN et al (2022) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands

  21. Mertan FV, Greer MD, Borofsky S et al (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of recurrent prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 25:139–147

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kitajima K, Hartman RP, Froemming AT, Hagen CE, Takahashi N, Kawashima A (2015) Detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy using endorectal coil MRI at 3 T: addition of DWI and dynamic contrast enhancement to T2-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:807–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Patel P, Mathew MS, Trilisky I, Oto A (2018) Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiographics 38:437–449

  24. Viers BR, Sukov WR, Gettman MT et al (2014) Primary Gleason grade 4 at the positive margin is associated with metastasis and death among patients with Gleason 7 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 66:1116–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barchetti F, Panebianco V (2014) Multiparametric MRI for recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy and postradiation therapy. Biomed Res Int 2014:316272

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sandgren K, Westerlinck P, Jonsson JH et al (2019) Imaging for the detection of locoregional recurrences in biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy—a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 5:550–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu LM, Xu JR, Gu HY et al (2013) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. Clin Oncol 25:252–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lawhn-Heath C, Salavati A, Behr SC et al (2021) Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET in prostate cancer. Radiology 299:248–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH (2018) Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 74:179–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Oh SW, Cheon GJ (2018) Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET imaging in prostate cancer: opportunities and challenges. Korean J Radiol 19:819–831

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Achard V, Lamanna G, Denis A et al (2019) Recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: restaging performance of 18F-choline hybrid PET/MRI. Med Oncol 36:67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Emmett L, van Leeuwen PJ, Nandurkar R et al (2017) Treatment outcomes from (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT-informed salvage radiation treatment in men with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy: prognostic value of a negative PSMA PET. J Nucl Med 58:1972–1976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Heisen M, Fan X, Buurman J, van Riel NA, Karczmar GS, ter Haar Romeny BM (2010) The influence of temporal resolution in determining pharmacokinetic parameters from DCE-MRI data. Magn Reson Med 63:811–816

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M et al (2019) (18)F-fluciclovine PET-CT and (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol 20:1286–1294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea

    Mi Yeon Park, Kye Jin Park, Mi-Hyun Kim & Jeong Kon Kim

Authors
  1. Mi Yeon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kye Jin Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mi-Hyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeong Kon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kye Jin Park.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Kye Jin Park, M.D., Ph.D.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at a single institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, M.Y., Park, K.J., Kim, MH. et al. Focal nodular enhancement on DCE MRI of the prostatectomy bed: radiologic-pathologic correlations and prognostic value. Eur Radiol 33, 2985–2994 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09241-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09241-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation