Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?
To investigate, if and how omitting gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) influences diagnostic accuracy and tumor detection rates of prostate MRI.
In this retrospective study, 236 patients were included. The results of biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were compared using the PI-RADS version 2 scoring system. The distribution of lesions to PIRADS score levels, tumor detection rates, diagnostic accuracy and RoC analysis were calculated and compared to the results of histopathological analysis or 5-year follow-up for benign findings.
Omitting DCE changed PI-RADS scores in 9.75% of patients, increasing the number of PI-RADS 3 scores by 8.89% when compared to mpMRI. No change of more than one score level was observed. BpMRI did not show significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates. (AuC of 0.914 vs 0.917 in ROC analysis). Of 135 prostate carcinomas (PCa), 94.07% were scored identically, and 5.93% were downgraded only from PI-RADS 4 to PI-RADS 3 by bpMRI. All of them were low-grade PCa with Gleason Score 6 or 7a. No changes were observed for PCa ≥ 7b.
Omitting DCE did not lead to significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates when using the PI-RADS 2 scoring system. According to these data, it seems reasonable to use a biparametric approach for initial routine prostate MRI. This could decrease examination time and reduce costs without significantly lowering the diagnostic accuracy.
KeywordsPI-RADS Prostate cancer Multiparametric MRI Biparametric MRI DCE Contrast medium
DJ protocol and project development, data analysis, manuscript writing. FS manuscript writing and editing, data analysis. VF data collection, manuscript editing. JB data collection, data management. TT data collection, data management. FA project development, data collection. TRWH manuscript editing, interpretation of data. MR manuscript writing, critical revision of the manuscript. UN manuscript writing and editing, interpretation of data.
Compliance of ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, nothing to declare.
Research including human participants and ethical approval
This is a retrospective study. Institutional review board approval was granted by means of a general waiver for studies with retrospective data analysis (Ethikkommission, Med. Univ. Innsbruck; 2009-02-20). All procedures performed 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.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 3.Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Girouin N, Mege-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, Bissery A, Rabilloud M, Marechal JM, Colombel M, Lyonnet D, Rouviere O (2007) Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol 17(6):1498–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0478-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Veltman J, Huisman HJ, Vos P, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, Krabbe PF, Heerschap A, Barentsz JO (2006) Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 241(2):449–458. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2412051866 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(1):146–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20793 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Yoshimitsu K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H, Tajima T, Asayama Y, Hirakawa M, Ishigami K, Naito S, Honda H (2008) Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with stepwise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 27(1):132–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, Barrett T, Kayat Bittencourt L, Borofsky S, Kabakus IM, Law YM, Marko J, Shebel H, Mertan FV, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Summers RM, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2. Radiology 285(3):859–869. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161316 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cocozza S, Fusco F, Rusconi G, Nappi C, Mirone V, Mangiapia F, Brunetti A, Ragozzino A, Longo N (2016) Biparametric 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naive patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2? Eur J Radiol 85(12):2269–2274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D’Andrea A, Martorana E, Malaspina C, Palumbo B, Orlandi A, Falcone G, Milizia M, Mearini L, Aisa MC, Scialpi P, Bianchi G, Sidoni A, C DED (2017) Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI with non-endorectal coil at 3T in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 37(3):1263–1271. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11443 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Mussi TC, Martins T, Garcia RG, Filippi RZ, Lemos GC, Baroni RH (2017) Are dynamic contrast-enhanced images necessary for prostate cancer detection on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(3):e447–e454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.10.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Sanz-Requena R, Marti-Bonmati L, Perez-Martinez R, Garcia-Marti G (2016) Dynamic contrast-enhanced case-control analysis in 3T MRI of prostate cancer can help to characterize tumor aggressiveness. Eur J Radiol 85(11):2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, Vannier MW, Antic T, Thomas S, McCann S, Oto A (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? Radiology 275(2):448–457. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140847 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, Cianci R, d’Annibale M, Colasante A, Cinalli S, Castellan P, Navarra R, Iantorno R, Gabrielli D, Buffone A, Caulo M, Basilico R (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol 101:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P, Decaestecker K, Pattyn E, Villeirs G (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(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, Bjartell A, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Humphrey PA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R, Stief C (2012) A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 62(1):20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, Cornud F (2011) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 107(9):1411–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09808.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, Haider MA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Pinto P, Sonn GA, Taneja SS (2016) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 196(6):1613–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Steinkohl F, Gruber L, Bektic J, Nagele U, Aigner F, Herrmann TRW, Rieger M, Junker D (2018) Retrospective analysis of the development of PIRADS 3 lesions over time: when is a follow-up MRI reasonable? World J Urol 36(3):367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2135-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, Aneja S, Sprenkle PC, Weinreb JC, Spektor M (2018) Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3 (Equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210(2):347–357. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18516 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Krishna S, McInnes M, Lim C, Lim R, Hakim SW, Flood TA, Schieda N (2017) Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system versions 1 and 2 for the detection of peripheral zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(6):W365–W373. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.17964 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Deray G, Rouviere O, Bacigalupo L, Maes B, Hannedouche T, Vrtovsnik F, Rigothier C, Billiouw JM, Campioni P, Ferreiros J, Devos D, Alison D, Glowacki F, Boffa JJ, Marti-Bonmati L (2013) Safety of meglumine gadoterate (Gd-DOTA)-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI in patients with chronic kidney disease (RESCUE study). Eur Radiol 23(5):1250–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2705-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, Dietzel F, Sawicki LM, Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Blondin D, Wittsack HJ, Schimmoller L (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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar