Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 9, pp 4861–4870 | Cite as

Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings

  • Andrei S. PuryskoEmail author
  • Cristina Magi-Galluzzi
  • Omar Y. Mian
  • Sarah Sittenfeld
  • Elai Davicioni
  • Marguerite du Plessis
  • Christine Buerki
  • Jennifer Bullen
  • Lin Li
  • Anant Madabhushi
  • Andrew Stephenson
  • Eric A. Klein
Urogenital

Abstract

Objectives

We sought to evaluate the correlation between MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 and the Decipher Genomic Classifier (used to estimate the risk of early metastases).

Methods

This single-center, retrospective study included 72 nonconsecutive men with prostate cancer who underwent MRI before radical prostatectomy performed between April 2014 and August 2017 and whose MRI registered lesions were microdissected from radical prostatectomy specimens and then profiled using Decipher (89 lesions; 23 MRI invisible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≤ 2] and 66 MRI visible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≥ 3]). Linear regression analysis was used to assess clinicopathologic and MRI predictors of Decipher results; correlation coefficients (r) were used to quantify these associations. AUC was used to determine whether PI-RADS v2 could accurately distinguish between low-risk (Decipher score < 0.45) and intermediate-/high-risk (Decipher score ≥ 0.45) lesions.

Results

MRI-visible lesions had higher Decipher scores than MRI-invisible lesions (mean difference 0.22; 95% CI 0.13, 0.32; p < 0.0001); most MRI-invisible lesions (82.6%) were low risk. PI-RADS v2 had moderate correlation with Decipher (r = 0.54) and had higher accuracy (AUC 0.863) than prostate cancer grade groups (AUC 0.780) in peripheral zone lesions (95% CI for difference 0.01, 0.15; p = 0.018).

Conclusions

MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer are positively correlated with Decipher risk groups. Although PI-RADS v2 can accurately distinguish between lesions classified by Decipher as low or intermediate/high risk, some lesions classified as intermediate/high risk by Decipher are invisible on MRI.

Key Points

• MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 positively correlated with a genomic classifier that estimates the risk of early metastases.

• Most but not all MRI-invisible lesions had a low risk for early metastases according to the genomic classifier.

• MRI could be used in conjunction with genomic assays to identify lesions that may carry biological potential for early metastases.

Keywords

Prostatic neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Genes 

Abbreviations

GG

Grade group

GS

Gleason score

H&E

Hematoxylin and eosin

PCa

Prostate cancer

PZ

Peripheral zone

RP

Radical prostatectomy

TZ

Transition zone

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the editorial assistance of Megan M. Griffiths, scientific writer for the Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.

Funding

This study has received funding from the Center for Clinical Genomics, Cleveland Clinic; Research Seed Grant Award Presented by Philips/Radiological Society of North America Research & Education Foundation; and GenomicDx Biosciences.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andrei S. Purysko, MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Elai Davicioni, Christine Buerki, and Marguerite du Plessis are employees of GenomeDx Biosciences.

The other 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

The co-author Jennifer Bullen is a biostatistician of the Quantitative Health Sciences Department at Cleveland Clinic. She kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board due to the minimal risk and retrospective nature of this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6114_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carroll PH, Mohler JL (2018) NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:620–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moschini M, Spahn M, Mattei A, Cheville J, Karnes RJ (2016) Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics. BMC Med 14:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara IA et al (2013) Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS One 8:e66855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karnes RJ, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E (2013) Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J Urol 190:2047–2053CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein EA, Yousefi K, Haddad Z et al (2015) A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 67:778–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 313:390–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 389:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S et al (2018) What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 286:186–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2012) Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol 187:2032–2038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA et al (2018) Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031
  13. 13.
    Dianat SS, Carter HB, Pienta KJ et al (2015) Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes. Urology 85:147–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ho R, Siddiqui MM, George AK et al (2016) Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. PLoS One 11:e0157313CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC et al (2016) Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with PI-RADS version 2 in prostate cancers: initial results. Eur Radiol 26:2502–2509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shiradkar R, Ghose S, Jambor I et al (2018) Radiomic features from pretreatment biparametric MRI predict prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 48:1626–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Penzias G, Janowczyk A, Singanamalli A et al (2016) AutoStitcher: an automated program for efficient and robust reconstruction of digitized whole histological sections from tissue fragments. Sci Rep 6:29906CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li L, Pahwa S, Penzias G et al (2017) Co-registration of ex vivo surgical histopathology and in vivo T2 weighted MRI of the prostate via multi-scale spectral embedding representation. Sci Rep 7:8717CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freedland SJ, Choeurng V, Howard L et al (2016) Utilization of a genomic classifier for prediction of metastasis following salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 70:588–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Obuchowski NA (1997) Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. Biometrics 53:567–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karnes RJ, Choeurng V, Ross AE et al (2018) Validation of a genomic risk classifier to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with adverse pathologic features. Eur Urol 73:168–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spratt DE, Dai DLY, Den RB et al (2018) Performance of a prostate cancer genomic classifier in predicting metastasis in men with prostate-specific antigen persistence postprostatectomy. Eur Urol 74:107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spratt DE, Yousefi K, Deheshi S et al (2017) Individual patient-level meta-analysis of the performance of the decipher genomic classifier in high-risk men after prostatectomy to predict development of metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 35:1991–1998CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klein EA, Santiago-Jiménez M, Yousefi K et al (2017) Molecular analysis of low grade prostate cancer using a genomic classifier of metastatic potential. J Urol 197:122–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Den RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ et al (2015) Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 33:944–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li P, You S, Nguyen C et al (2018) Genes involved in prostate cancer progression determine MRI visibility. Theranostics 8:1752–1765CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beksac AT, Cumarasamy S, Falagario U et al (2018) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging features identify aggressive prostate cancer at the phenotypic and transcriptomic level. J Urol 200:1241–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Radtke JP, Takhar M, Bonekamp D et al (2018) Transcriptome wide analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and matching surgical specimens from high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: the target must be hit. Eur Urol Focus 4:540–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boutros PC, Fraser M, Harding NJ et al (2015) Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat Genet 47:736–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooperberg MR, Erho N, Chan JM et al (2018) The diverse genomic landscape of clinically low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 74:444–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280:793–804CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stoyanova R, Pollack A, Takhar M et al (2016) Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. Oncotarget 7:53362–53376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrei S. Purysko
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Magi-Galluzzi
    • 2
  • Omar Y. Mian
    • 3
  • Sarah Sittenfeld
    • 3
  • Elai Davicioni
    • 4
  • Marguerite du Plessis
    • 4
  • Christine Buerki
    • 4
  • Jennifer Bullen
    • 5
  • Lin Li
    • 6
  • Anant Madabhushi
    • 6
  • Andrew Stephenson
    • 7
  • Eric A. Klein
    • 7
  1. 1.Abdominal Imaging Section and Nuclear Radiology Department, Imaging InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Pathology and Laboratory Medicine InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Radiation Oncology and Translational OncologyCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.GenomeDx BiosciencesVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Quantitative Health SciencesCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  7. 7.Glickman Urological and Kidney InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations