Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 50, Issue 11, pp 1989–1997 | Cite as

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

  • Jung Jun Kim
  • Seok-Soo Byun
  • Sang Eun Lee
  • Hak Jong Lee
  • Gheeyoung Choe
  • Sung Kyu HongEmail author
Urology - Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Insignificant cancer Favorable pathology 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

PCa

Prostate cancer

RP

Radical prostatectomy

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

mpMRI

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

Notes

Author contributions

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.

Funding

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA 65(1):5–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC (1996) Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 20(3):286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC (2015) Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. Int J Radiat Oncol* Biol* Phys 92(2):244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V (2012) Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(4):822PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riches S, Vanas N, Morgan V, Ashley S, Fisher C, Payne G, Parker C (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63(7):774–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S, Sarma MK, Sheng K, King CR, Verma G, Sayre J, Reiter RE, Thomas MA (2012) MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J Magn Reson Imaging 36(3):697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Bae H, Yoshida S, Matsuoka Y, Nakajima H, Ito E, Tanaka H, Oya M, Nakayama T, Takeshita H, Kijima T (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient value as a biomarker reflecting morphological and biological features of prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 46(3):555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, Caraiani C, Lucan C, Suciu M, Elec F, Iacob G, Buruian M (2014) Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 14(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH, Fenchel M, Hadaschik BA, Laun FB, Schlemmer H-P, Stieltjes B (2015) Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Investig Radiol 50(8):483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Chang JH, Joon DL, Lee ST, Hiew C-Y, Esler S, Gong SJ, Wada M, Clouston D, O’Sullivan R, Goh YP (2014) Diffusion-weighted MRI, 11C-choline PET and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for predicting the Gleason score in prostate carcinoma. Eur Radiol 24(3):715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim TH, Jeong JY, Lee SW, Kim CK, Park BK, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM (2015) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance. Eur Radiol 25(6):1786–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 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. 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
  25. 25.
    Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, Lu DY, Lieu P, Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Dorey FJ, Huang J, Margolis DJ (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 192(5):1367–1373PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kang M, Song B, Lee I, Lee SE, Byun S-S, Hong SK (2016) Predictors of pathological upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients without hypointense lesions on an apparent diffusion coefficient map of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. World J Urol 34(11):1541–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1471–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, Hutterer GC, Ahyai S, Lattouf J-B, Haese A, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Heinzer H (2008) Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 54(6):1306–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stamey TA, Freiha F, McNeal J, Redwine E, Whittemore A, Schmid H (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Cancer 71(S3):933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, Villers A (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 108(8b):E171–E178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 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. 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
  37. 37.
    Filson C, Margolis D, Huang J, Natarajan S, Lieu P, Dorey F, Marks L (2015) MP60-11 should a normal multiparametric MRI preclude prostate biopsy? J Urol 193(4):e742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2016) Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 118(4):515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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(6):2032–2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, Huang J, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67(3):569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. 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
  43. 43.
    Mai Z, Xiao Y, Yan W, Zhou Y, Zhou Z, Liang Z, Ji Z, Li H (2018) Comparison of lesions detected and undetected by template-guided transperineal saturation prostate biopsy. BJU Int 121(3):415–420.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Steinberg DM, Fine J, Chappell R (2009) Sample size for positive and negative predictive value in diagnostic research using case-control designs. Biostatistics (Oxford England) 10(1):94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxn018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim K, Lee JK, Choe G, Hong SK (2016) Intraprostatic locations of tumor foci of higher grade missed by diagnostic prostate biopsy among potential candidates for active surveillance. Sci Rep 6:36781PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR, Muralidhar V, Chen Y-W, Viswanathan VB, Nezolosky MD, Beard CJ, Choueiri TK, Martin NE (2015) Incidence and predictors of upgrading and up staging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 194(2):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 48.
    Zhang L, Yang B-X, Zhang H-T, Wang J-G, Wang H-L, Zhao X-J (2011) Prostate cancer: an emerging threat to the health of aging men in Asia. Asian J Androl 13(4):574–578PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung Jun Kim
    • 1
  • Seok-Soo Byun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sang Eun Lee
    • 1
  • Hak Jong Lee
    • 3
  • Gheeyoung Choe
    • 4
  • Sung Kyu Hong
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologySeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnam-siSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of UrologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologySeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of PathologySeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations