Prediction of extraprostatic extension on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in patients with anterior prostate cancer
To validate how established markers of extraprostatic extension (EPE) are applied to anterior prostate cancers (APCs), and to investigate other novel markers if available.
Among 614 histopathologically confirmed APCs from 2011 to 2016, 221 lesions with PiRADS (verion 2) scores ≥ 4 on 3-T multi-parametric MRI were analyzed retrospectively. Two radiologists independently assessed capsular morphology qualitatively with 5-point scale (normal, thinning, bulging, loss, extracapsular disease), and capsule contact length (arc), tumor dimension, and their ratio (arc-dimension ratio) quantitatively. Reproducibility in measurement was assessed with κ and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Logistic regression analysis was done to find meaningful indicators of EPE. Diagnostic performance of markers was compared to one another with generalized linear model and multi-reader multi-case ROC analysis.
Reproducibility was moderate to substantial (κ 0.45–0.73) for qualitative, and moderate to almost perfect (ICC 0.50–0.87) for quantitative features of EPE. Capsular morphology (odds ratio [OR] 1.818), capsule contact length (OR 1.115), tumor dimension (OR 1.035), and arc-dimension ratio (OR 1.846) were independently associated with EPE (p ≤ 0.019). Capsular bulging and capsule contact length of 10 mm as thresholds of EPE demonstrated sensitivity/specificity of 0.58/0.85 and 0.77/0.68, respectively. Capsule contact length yielded greatest AUC (0.784), followed by capsular morphology (0.778), arc-dimension ratio (0.749), and tumor dimension (0.741). Diagnostic performance of capsular morphology, capsule contact length, and arc-dimension ratio was comparable in predicting EPE.
Existing markers of EPE applicable regardless of locations of tumors apply similarly to APCs. Arc-dimension ratio may be a novel marker of EPE of APCs.
• Existing imaging markers of extraprostatic extension (EPE) which have been applied regardless of locations of tumors are reflected similarly to anterior prostate cancers (APCs).
• Measuring tumor dimension without capsular assessment may result in insufficient pre-operative prediction of EPE of APCs.
• Arc-dimension ratio (capsule contact length divided by tumor dimension) exhibited highest OR and comparable performance to existing features in predicting EPE of APCs.
KeywordsProstatic neoplasms Adenocarcinoma Neoplasm staging Magnetic resonance imaging
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Anterior fibromuscular stroma
Anterior prostate cancer
Area under the curve
Intra-class correlation coefficient
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System
Receiver operating characteristic
This study was presented in the annual meeting of European Congress of Radiology of 2018.
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation funded by the Ministry of Science, Information and Communications Technology, Republic of Korea (Grant No. NRF-2013R1A1A2011398).
This work was supported by the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund (Grant No. 11-2010-008).
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hak Jong Lee.
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
Joongyub Lee kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• performed at one institution
- 1.Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, Tickoo SK, Scardino PT, Reuter VE (2007) Anatomy of the anterior prostate and extraprostatic space: a contemporary surgical pathology analysis. Adv Anat Pathol 14:401–407Google Scholar
- 4.Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L et al (2005) Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 39:34–63Google Scholar
- 5.Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 24:26–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Mills SE (2012) Histology for pathologists, 4th edn. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 10.Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Smith SC et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33:109 e15–109 e22Google Scholar
- 12.Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2016) Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: assessment at an optimal threshold. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:990–997Google Scholar
- 13.Kongnyuy M, Sidana A, George AK et al (2017) Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: a potential biomarker for staging and prognosis. Urol Oncol 35:30 e1–30 e8Google Scholar
- 15.American College of Radiology (2019) Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2.1. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf?la=en. Accessed 2 May 2019
- 16.Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS et al (2006) Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 239:784–792Google Scholar
- 22.Vatcheva KP, Lee M, McCormick JB, Rahbar MH (2016) Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiol (Sunnyvale) 6:227Google Scholar
- 23.Dormann CF, Elith J, Sven B et al (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1):27–46Google Scholar
- 29.Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods formultiple observer ROC analysis. StatMed 26:596–619Google Scholar
- 40.Kamoi K, Okihara K, Hongo F et al (2017) MP93-20 tumor contact length with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging as a potential predictor for biochemical recurrence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 197:e1244Google Scholar
- 42.Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PMa (2013) Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ 185:E537–E544Google Scholar
- 46.van der Kwast TH, Collette L, Van Poppel H et al (2006) Impact of pathology review of stage and margin status of radical prostatectomy specimens (EORTC trial 22911). Virchows Arch 449:428–434Google Scholar