Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

We sought to evaluate the correlation between MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 and the Decipher Genomic Classifier (used to estimate the risk of early metastases).

Methods

This single-center, retrospective study included 72 nonconsecutive men with prostate cancer who underwent MRI before radical prostatectomy performed between April 2014 and August 2017 and whose MRI registered lesions were microdissected from radical prostatectomy specimens and then profiled using Decipher (89 lesions; 23 MRI invisible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≤ 2] and 66 MRI visible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≥ 3]). Linear regression analysis was used to assess clinicopathologic and MRI predictors of Decipher results; correlation coefficients (r) were used to quantify these associations. AUC was used to determine whether PI-RADS v2 could accurately distinguish between low-risk (Decipher score < 0.45) and intermediate-/high-risk (Decipher score ≥ 0.45) lesions.

Results

MRI-visible lesions had higher Decipher scores than MRI-invisible lesions (mean difference 0.22; 95% CI 0.13, 0.32; p < 0.0001); most MRI-invisible lesions (82.6%) were low risk. PI-RADS v2 had moderate correlation with Decipher (r = 0.54) and had higher accuracy (AUC 0.863) than prostate cancer grade groups (AUC 0.780) in peripheral zone lesions (95% CI for difference 0.01, 0.15; p = 0.018).

Conclusions

MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer are positively correlated with Decipher risk groups. Although PI-RADS v2 can accurately distinguish between lesions classified by Decipher as low or intermediate/high risk, some lesions classified as intermediate/high risk by Decipher are invisible on MRI.

Key Points

• MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 positively correlated with a genomic classifier that estimates the risk of early metastases.

• Most but not all MRI-invisible lesions had a low risk for early metastases according to the genomic classifier.

• MRI could be used in conjunction with genomic assays to identify lesions that may carry biological potential for early metastases.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GG:

Grade group

GS:

Gleason score

H&E:

Hematoxylin and eosin

PCa:

Prostate cancer

PZ:

Peripheral zone

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

TZ:

Transition zone

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68:7–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carroll PH, Mohler JL (2018) NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:620–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moschini M, Spahn M, Mattei A, Cheville J, Karnes RJ (2016) Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics. BMC Med 14:67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara IA et al (2013) Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS One 8:e66855

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Karnes RJ, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E (2013) Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J Urol 190:2047–2053

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Klein EA, Yousefi K, Haddad Z et al (2015) A genomic classifier improves prediction of metastatic disease within 5 years after surgery in node-negative high-risk prostate cancer patients managed by radical prostatectomy without adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 67:778–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S et al (2018) What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 286:186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 187:2032–2038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA et al (2018) Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031

  13. Dianat SS, Carter HB, Pienta KJ et al (2015) Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes. Urology 85:147–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ho R, Siddiqui MM, George AK et al (2016) Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. PLoS One 11:e0157313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC et al (2016) Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with PI-RADS version 2 in prostate cancers: initial results. Eur Radiol 26:2502–2509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shiradkar R, Ghose S, Jambor I et al (2018) Radiomic features from pretreatment biparametric MRI predict prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 48:1626–1636

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Penzias G, Janowczyk A, Singanamalli A et al (2016) AutoStitcher: an automated program for efficient and robust reconstruction of digitized whole histological sections from tissue fragments. Sci Rep 6:29906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Li L, Pahwa S, Penzias G et al (2017) Co-registration of ex vivo surgical histopathology and in vivo T2 weighted MRI of the prostate via multi-scale spectral embedding representation. Sci Rep 7:8717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Freedland SJ, Choeurng V, Howard L et al (2016) Utilization of a genomic classifier for prediction of metastasis following salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 70:588–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Obuchowski NA (1997) Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. Biometrics 53:567–578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Karnes RJ, Choeurng V, Ross AE et al (2018) Validation of a genomic risk classifier to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with adverse pathologic features. Eur Urol 73:168–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spratt DE, Dai DLY, Den RB et al (2018) Performance of a prostate cancer genomic classifier in predicting metastasis in men with prostate-specific antigen persistence postprostatectomy. Eur Urol 74:107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Spratt DE, Yousefi K, Deheshi S et al (2017) Individual patient-level meta-analysis of the performance of the decipher genomic classifier in high-risk men after prostatectomy to predict development of metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 35:1991–1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein EA, Santiago-Jiménez M, Yousefi K et al (2017) Molecular analysis of low grade prostate cancer using a genomic classifier of metastatic potential. J Urol 197:122–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Den RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ et al (2015) Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 33:944–951

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Li P, You S, Nguyen C et al (2018) Genes involved in prostate cancer progression determine MRI visibility. Theranostics 8:1752–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Beksac AT, Cumarasamy S, Falagario U et al (2018) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging features identify aggressive prostate cancer at the phenotypic and transcriptomic level. J Urol 200:1241–1249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Radtke JP, Takhar M, Bonekamp D et al (2018) Transcriptome wide analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and matching surgical specimens from high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: the target must be hit. Eur Urol Focus 4:540–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boutros PC, Fraser M, Harding NJ et al (2015) Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat Genet 47:736–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cooperberg MR, Erho N, Chan JM et al (2018) The diverse genomic landscape of clinically low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 74:444–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280:793–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stoyanova R, Pollack A, Takhar M et al (2016) Association of multiparametric MRI quantitative imaging features with prostate cancer gene expression in MRI-targeted prostate biopsies. Oncotarget 7:53362–53376

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the editorial assistance of Megan M. Griffiths, scientific writer for the Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.

Funding

This study has received funding from the Center for Clinical Genomics, Cleveland Clinic; Research Seed Grant Award Presented by Philips/Radiological Society of North America Research & Education Foundation; and GenomicDx Biosciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrei S. Purysko.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andrei S. Purysko, MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Elai Davicioni, Christine Buerki, and Marguerite du Plessis are employees of GenomeDx Biosciences.

The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

The co-author Jennifer Bullen is a biostatistician of the Quantitative Health Sciences Department at Cleveland Clinic. She kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board due to the minimal risk and retrospective nature of this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purysko, A.S., Magi-Galluzzi, C., Mian, O.Y. et al. Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. Eur Radiol 29, 4861–4870 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06114-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06114-x

Keywords

Navigation