Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on multiparametric prostate MRI
To assess the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings (IFs) detected at multiparametric prostate MRI examination.
Materials and methods
Multiparametric prostate MRIs of 647 consecutive patients (mean age 67.1 ± 8.0 years) were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists recording the presence of all extra-prostatic IFs. Findings were classified as related to or not related to genitourinary system and divided into three classes, according to their clinical significance, as follows: group 1, not significant or scarcely significant; group 2, moderately or potentially significant; and group 3, significant. Differences in distribution of IFs between patients ≤ 65 years old and patients > 65 years old were assessed using Pearson’s χ2 or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Incidental findings (n = 461) were present in 341 (52.7%) patients, while 306 (47.3%) patients did not have any extra-prostatic IF. Overall, IFs were significantly more common in patients > 65 years old (n = 225, 57.0%) compared to patients ≤ 65 years old (n = 116, 46.0%, p = 0.007). There were 139 (30.2%) IFs related to genitourinary system and 322 (69.8%) IFs not related to genitourinary system. Group 3 IFs were almost exclusively present in patients > 65 years old (2.8%, p = 0.034) and included 7 (1.1%) bladder carcinomas, 3 (0.5%) testicle tumors, 2 (0.3%) rectal cancers. Twenty-seven (4.2%) of the 647 patients underwent surgical treatment for IFs not directly related to prostate cancer.
IFs not related to prostate cancer may be frequently encountered on multiparametric prostate MRI, and they are significantly more common in patients > 65 years old.
KeywordsProstate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Incidental findings Collateral findings
No funding was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants 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.
Informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
- 3.Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, Renehan AG, Forman D, Soerjomataram I (2015) Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer 51:1164–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Prostate Cancer: Statistics. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics. Accessed on 05 August 2019
- 6.El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, Gabe R, Hindley RG, Kaplan R, Emberton M, Ahmed HU, PROMIS Group (2015) PROMIS–Prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 42:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.02.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, Volkin D, Yerram N, Chua C, Linehan WM, Wood B, Choyke P, Pinto PA (2012) Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int 110:E694–E700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11503.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Fütterer JJ (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 26:46–66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Rayn KN, Hale GR, Bloom JB, Gold SA, Carvalho FLF, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, Choyke P, Türkbey B, Pinto PA, Agarwal PK (2018) Incidental bladder cancers found on multiparametric MRI of the prostate gland: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 24:316–320. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2018.18102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.American College of Radiology. Incidental findings. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Incidental-Findings. Accessed date on 05 August 2019
- 16.Cieszanowski A, Maj E, Kulisiewicz P, Grudzinski IP, Jakoniuk-Glodala K, Chlipala-Nitek I, Kaczynski B, Rowinski O (2014) Non-contrast-enhanced whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the general population: the incidence of abnormal findings in patients 50 years old and younger compared to older subjects. PLoS ONE 26:e107840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.American College of Radiology website (2019) Prostate imaging reporting & data system (PI-RADS). https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/PI-RADS. Accessed 05 August 2019
- 21.Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2018) The diagnostic performance of mri for detection of lymph node metastasis in bladder and prostate cancer: an updated systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:W95–W109. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18481 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar