Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Index tumor volume on MRI as a predictor of clinical and pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Index tumor volume (ITV) measured on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens has been shown to be associated with adverse pathologic and oncologic outcomes. We evaluate the value of ITV calculated from prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in predicting adverse clinical and pathologic outcomes.

Materials and methods

Data from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database were analyzed for patients who underwent mpMRI prior to RP (2007–2016). Index tumor was defined as a T2-visible lesion with the longest diameter. Adverse pathologic outcomes were extraprostatic extension (EPE), lymph node invasion (LNI), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and positive margins (PM). Logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to assess associations with adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence (BCR), respectively.

Results

Of the 455 patients included, EPE, LNI, SVI and PM were present in 23.5%, 6.2%, 5.5% and 15.7% patients, respectively. Patients with adverse pathologic outcomes had larger median ITV. ITV was found to be an independent predictor of EPE (OR 1.22, p = 0.010), LNI (OR 1.39, p = 0.001), and SVI (OR 1.28, p = 0.009), but not PM (OR 1.03, p = 0.522). Combination of ITV and PSA was found to have predictive ability comparable to that of modified Partin tables (EPE:ITV + PSAAUC = 0.71 vs. PartinAUC = 0.71; LNI:ITV + PSAAUC = 0.92 vs. PartinAUC = 0.90, SVI:ITV + PSAAUC = 0.78 vs. PartinAUC = 0.82). 5 year BCR-free survival (median follow-up 24.9 months) was higher for patients with ITV < 2 cc (84.1% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.001). However, ITV was not found to be an independent predictor of BCR (HR 1.69, p = 0.130).

Conclusions

We demonstrate that ITV measured on mpMRI is a predictor of adverse pathologic and clinical outcomes and can aid in preoperative risk assessment.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Knoedler JJ, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH et al (2014) The association of tumor volume with mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17:144–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F et al (2016) Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 118:515–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O et al (2012) Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 188:1157–1163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D et al (2006) Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 176:2432–2437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Institute JH-JBBU (2012) Partin tables. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/brady-urology-institute/specialties/conditions-and-treatments/prostate-cancer/fighting-prostate-cancer/partin-table.html. Accessed 23 Mar 2012

  7. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL et al (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyer CP, Hansen J, Boehm K et al (2016) Tumor volume improves the long-term prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer with positive surgical margins. World J Urol 35(2):199–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Merrill MM, Lane BR, Reuther AM et al (2007) Tumor volume does not predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with surgical Gleason score 6 or less prostate cancer. Urology 70:294–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung JW, Lee JK, Hong SK et al (2015) Stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:907–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Cabarrou B et al (2016) Improved decision making in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a multicenter study on pathologic and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 35(8):1191–1197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1728–1734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pelzer AE, Colleselli D, Bektic J et al (2008) Pathological features of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers in the low and intermediate range of prostate-specific antigen level: is there a difference? BJU Int 101:822–825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakanishi H, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ (2008) Prediction of extraprostatic extension in men with biopsy Gleason score of 8 or greater. J Urol 180:2441–2445 (discussion 2445-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chun FK, Briganti A, Jeldres C et al (2007) Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 43:536–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kongnyuy M, Sidana A, George AK et al (2017) Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: a potential biomarker for staging and prognosis. Urol Oncol 35:30.e1–30.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abdollah F, Abdo A, Sun M et al (2013) Pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: adherence and accuracy of the recent guidelines. Int J Urol 20:405–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Briganti A, Gallina A, Nazareno S et al (2013) 374 External validation of the eau guidelines for pelvic lymph node dissection among patients treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 189:e151–e152

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA et al (2014) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 65:303–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL et al (2010) The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 183:1003–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chalfin HJ, Dinizo M, Trock BJ et al (2012) Impact of surgical margin status on prostate-cancer-specific mortality. BJU Int 110:1684–1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Preston MA, Blute ML (2014) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: does it matter? Eur Urol 65:314–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Meng Y, Li H, Xu P et al (2015) Do tumor volume, percent tumor volume predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:22319–22327

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhindi B, Mamdani M, Kulkarni GS et al (2015) Impact of the U.S. preventive services task force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates. J Urol 193:1519–1524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Banerji JS, Wolff EM, Massman JD et al (2016) Prostate needle biopsy outcomes in the Era of the U.S. preventive services task force recommendation against prostate specific antigen based screening. J Urol 195:66–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by the Intramural Research Program of National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Center for Interventional Oncology, and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program, a public–private partnership supported jointly by National Institutes of Health and contributions to the Foundation for National Institutes of Health from Pfizer Inc., The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, The Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc., Mr. and Mrs. Joel S. Marcus, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and other private donors (http://fnih.org/work/education-training-0/medical-research-scholars-program).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Dordaneh Sugano and Abhinav Sidana have contributed equally to this manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 3-1621 NW, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA

    Dordaneh Sugano, Abhinav Sidana, Amit L. Jain, Brian Calio, Mahir Maruf & Peter A. Pinto

  2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Sonia Gaur, Peter Choyke & Baris Turkbey

  3. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Maria Merino

  4. National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, Center for Interventional Oncology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Bradford J. Wood

Authors
  1. Dordaneh Sugano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhinav Sidana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amit L. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brian Calio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonia Gaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mahir Maruf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Merino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Baris Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Bradford J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Peter A. Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit L. Jain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct or indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the manuscript. NIH, Philips Healthcare have a cooperative research, NIH and Philips share intellectual property in the field and development agreement.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugano, D., Sidana, A., Jain, A.L. et al. Index tumor volume on MRI as a predictor of clinical and pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 51, 1349–1355 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02168-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02168-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation