Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mass-like peripheral zone enhancement on CT is predictive of higher-grade (Gleason 4 + 3 and higher) prostate cancer

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether focal peripheral zone enhancement on routine venous-phase CT is predictive of higher-grade (Gleason 4 + 3 and higher) prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

IRB approval was obtained and informed consent waived for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Forty-three patients with higher-grade prostate cancer (≥Gleason 4 + 3) and 96 with histology-confirmed lower-grade (≤Gleason 3 + 4 [n = 47]) or absent (n = 49) prostate cancer imaged with venous-phase CT comprised the study population. CT images were reviewed by ten blinded radiologists (5 attendings, 5 residents) who scored peripheral zone enhancement on a scale of 1 (benign) to 5 (malignant). Mass-like peripheral zone enhancement was considered malignant. Likelihood ratios (LR) and specificities were calculated. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results

Scores of “5” were strongly predictive of higher-grade prostate cancer (pooled LR+ 9.6 [95% CI 5.8–15.8]) with rare false positives (pooled specificity: 0.98 [942/960, 95% CI 0.98–0.99]; all 10 readers had specificity ≥95%). Attending scores of “5” were more predictive than resident scores of “5” (LR+: 14.7 [95% CI 5.8–37.2] vs. 7.6 [95% CI 4.2–13.7]) with similar specificity (0.99 [475/480, 95% CI 0.98–1.00] vs. 0.97 [467/480, 95% CI 0.96–0.99]). Significant predictors of an assigned score of “5” included presence of a peripheral zone mass (p < 0.0001), larger size (p < 0.0001), and less reader experience (p = 0.0008). Significant predictors of higher-grade prostate cancer included presence of a peripheral zone mass (p = 0.0002) and larger size (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Focal mass-like peripheral zone enhancement on routine venous-phase CT is specific and predictive of higher-grade (Gleason 4 + 3 and higher) prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Engeler CE, Wasserman NF, Zhang G (1992) Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography. Weaknesses and new perspectives. Urology 40:346–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang P, Friedland GW (1990) The role of imaging in screening for prostate cancer. A decision analysis perspective. Invest Radiol 25:591–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Purohit RS, Shinohara K, Meng MV, et al. (2003) Imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 30:279–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. (2007) Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243:28–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, et al. (1997) Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 158:687–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Platt JF, Bree RL, Schwab RE (1987) The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 149:315–318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. (2010) Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection—histopathologic correlation. Radiology 255:89–99

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenkrantz AB, Sabach A, Babb JS, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W471–W478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric imaging. Radiology 266:207–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mikuz G (2007) Clinical pathology of urological tumours, 1st edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al. (2009) Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 27:3459–3464

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Statistical support was provided with help from NIH Grant 2UL1TR000433-06.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    D. I. Glazer, M. S. Davenport, R. H. Cohan, J. H. Ellis, E. M. Caoili, E. B. Stein, J. C. Childress, W. R. Masch, J. M. Brown, B. J. Mollard & I. R. Francis

  2. Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    S. Khalatbari

  3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    J. S. Montgomery & G. S. Palapattu

Authors
  1. D. I. Glazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. S. Davenport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Khalatbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. H. Cohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. H. Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. M. Caoili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. B. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. C. Childress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. W. R. Masch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. M. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. B. J. Mollard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J. S. Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. G. S. Palapattu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. I. R. Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. S. Davenport.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glazer, D.I., Davenport, M.S., Khalatbari, S. et al. Mass-like peripheral zone enhancement on CT is predictive of higher-grade (Gleason 4 + 3 and higher) prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 40, 560–570 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0233-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0233-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation