A negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging finding does not guarantee the absence of significant cancer among biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients: a real-life clinical experience
- 134 Downloads
We analyzed the data of consecutive patients who had preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) to evaluate the actual performance of mpMRI among biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa) patients in predicting favorable pathology in the real-life clinical setting.
Among a total 730 biopsy-proven PCa patients underwent RP, the preoperative mpMRIs of 534 patients were positive, demonstrating one or more PI-RADs V2 grade ≥ 2 lesion(s). Other 196 mpMRIs were classified as negative, without any suspicious lesion. Pathology was classified to be unfavorable when showing Gleason score (GS) 4/5 or pT3/N1 features. Significant cancer was defined as non-organ-confined, GS 4/5, or cancer volume of ≥ 0.5 mL.
Among a total 196 negative preoperative mpMRI patients, final RP pathology showed that 20 (10.2%) had pT3 disease and 2 (1.0%) had pN1 disease. Regarding the pathologic Gleason score, 117 (59.7%) had GS 3 + 4 and 44 (22.4%) had GS ≥ 4 + 3. The rate of a favorable PCa and an insignificant cancer was as low as 14.3% and 10.2%. Even among only the 101 D’Amico low-risk patients with negative MRI, the rates of a favorable pathology and an insignificant cancer were only 18.2% and 12.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value of mpMRI to predict a significant cancer were 74.3%, 45.5%, 95.5%, and 10.2%, respectively.
In the real-life clinical setting, mpMRI demonstrated limited performance in the prediction of favorable and insignificant prostate cancer as a negative mpMRI could not guarantee the absence of unfavorable pathology among PCa patients.
KeywordsMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Insignificant cancer Favorable pathology
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Magnetic resonance imaging
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
JJK, IJL, and SKH collected the data, wrote the manuscript, and prepared all of the tables. HJL and GC reviewed and confirmed the radiological and pathological medical records, respectively. HJL, S-SB, SEL, GC, and SKH supervised and revised the study design and the details of the manuscript.
This study is not supported any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The ethics committee of the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital approved this study.
- 4.Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Walz J, Kattan MW, Huland H, Graefen M (2007) A critical appraisal of logistic regression-based nomograms, artificial neural networks, classification and regression-tree models, look-up tables and risk-group stratification models for prostate cancer. BJU Int 99(4):794–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Chun FK-H, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, McCormack M, Huland H (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49(5):820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, Babb JS, Mussi TC, Melamed J, Taneja SS, Lee VS, Jensen JH (2012) Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 264(1):126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, Miyake H, Fujisawa M, Kawakami F, Sugimura K (2013) Do apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values obtained using high b-values with a 3-T MRI correlate better than a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy with true Gleason scores obtained from radical prostatectomy specimens for patients with prostate cancer? Eur J Radiol 82(8):1219–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Itatani R, Namimoto T, Kajihara H, Katahira K, Kitani K, Hamada Y, Yamashita Y (2014) Triage of low-risk prostate cancer patients with PSA levels 10 ng/ml or less: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient value and transrectal ultrasound-guided target biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 202(5):1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Itatani R, Namimoto T, Yoshimura A, Katahira K, Noda S, Toyonari N, Kitani K, Hamada Y, Kitaoka M, Yamashita Y (2014) Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Jpn J Radiol 32(12):685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Nowak J, Malzahn U, Baur AD, Reichelt U, Franiel T, Hamm B, Durmus T (2014) The value of ADC, T2 signal intensity, and a combination of both parameters to assess Gleason score and primary Gleason grades in patients with known prostate cancer. Acta Radiol 57(1):107–114Google Scholar
- 16.Tamada T, Kanomata N, Sone T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, Higashi H, Yamamoto A, Ito K (2014) High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 T: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS ONE 9(5):e96619PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Wang Q, Li H, Yan X, Wu C-J, Liu X-S, Shi H-B, Zhang Y-D (2015) Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. In: Urologic oncology: seminars and original investigations, vol 8. Elsevier, New York, pp 337.e315–337.e324Google Scholar
- 22.Somford D, Hamoen E, Fütterer J, Van Basten J, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa C, Vreuls W, Van Oort I, Vergunst H, Kiemeney L, Barentsz J (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190(5):1728–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, Yaskiv O, George AK, Fakhoury M, Beecher K, Vira MA, Kavoussi LR, Siegel DN (2014) Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 191(6):1749–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance–ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65(4):809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S, Locklin JK, Turkbey B, Shih J, Bratslavsky G (2011) D’Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 185(3):815–820PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, Katahira K, Morishita S, Kitani K, Hamada Y, Kitaoka M, Nakaura T, Yamashita Y (2014) Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1740–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Pokorny MR, De Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66(1):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Wang RS, Kim EH, Vetter JM, Fowler KJ, Shetty AS, Mintz AJ, Badhiwala NG, Grubb RL, Andriole GL (2016) Determination of the role of negative magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in clinical practice: is biopsy is still necessary? Urology 102:190–197Google Scholar
- 42.Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Branger N, Maubon T, Traumann M, Thomassin-Piana J, Brandone N, Taix S, Touzlian J, Brunelle S, Pignot G, Salem N (2016) Is negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging really able to exclude significant prostate cancer? The real-life experience. BJU Int 119:449–455Google Scholar