Advertisement

Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on multiparametric prostate MRI

  • Giuseppe Cutaia
  • Gaetano Tosto
  • Roberto CannellaEmail author
  • Alberto Bruno
  • Claudio Leto
  • Leonardo Salvaggio
  • Sofia Cutaia
  • Francesco Paolo Lombardo
  • Nino Dispensa
  • Dario Giambelluca
  • Massimo Midiri
  • Giuseppe Salvaggio
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Incidental findings Collateral findings 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2019) Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69:7–34.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49:1374–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Kelly SP, Anderson WF, Rosenberg PS, Cook MB (2018) Past, current, and future incidence rates and burden of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States. Eur Urol Focus 4:121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prostate Cancer: Statistics. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics. Accessed on 05 August 2019
  6. 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. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Sherrer RL, Lai WS, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S (2018) Incidental findings on multiparametric MRI performed for evaluation of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:696–701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1237-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Sardari A, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Pietryga JA, Sanyal R, Gordetsky JB, Rais-Bahrami S (2015) Incidental bladder cancer detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Case Rep Urol 2015:503154.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/503154 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho AA, Khara SS, Ferguson DJ, Mohammed MF, Chang SD, Harris AC (2019) A PSA for radiologists: pictorial review of incidentalomas on prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Can Assoc Radiol J 70:134–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2018.09.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    American College of Radiology. Incidental findings. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Incidental-Findings. Accessed date on 05 August 2019
  15. 15.
    Sankineni S, Brown AM, Fascelli M, Law YM, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2015) Lymph node staging in prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 16:30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0505-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Galia M, Albano D, Narese D, Patti C, Chianca V, Di Pietto F, Mulè A, Grassedonio E, La Grutta L, Lagalla R, Midiri M (2016) Whole-body MRI in patients with lymphoma: collateral findings. Radiol Med 121:793–800.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0658-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Elmi A, Tabatabaei S, Talab SS, Hedgire SS, Cao K, Harisinghani M (2012) Incidental findings at initial imaging workup of patients with prostate cancer: clinical significance and outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1305–1311.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8417 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sturludóttir M, Martling A, Carlsson S, Blomqvist L (2015) Synchronous rectal and prostate cancer–the impact of MRI on incidence and imaging findings. Eur J Radiol 84:563–567.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.12.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    McEvoy SH, Lavelle LP, Purcell YM, Quinlan DM, Skehan SJ, Collins CD, McMahon CJ (2015) Should abdominal sequences be included in prostate cancer MR staging studies? Eur J Radiol 84:1019–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.02.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe Cutaia
    • 1
  • Gaetano Tosto
    • 1
  • Roberto Cannella
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alberto Bruno
    • 1
  • Claudio Leto
    • 1
  • Leonardo Salvaggio
    • 1
  • Sofia Cutaia
    • 2
  • Francesco Paolo Lombardo
    • 1
  • Nino Dispensa
    • 3
  • Dario Giambelluca
    • 1
  • Massimo Midiri
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Salvaggio
    • 1
  1. 1.Sezione di Scienze Radiologiche, Dipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica avanzata (BIND)University of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Medical Oncology, DICHIRONSUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  3. 3.Unità operativa di Urologia, Dipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e StomatologicheUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations