Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate three indirect MRI signs for predicting extraprostatic disease in patients referred to radical prostatectomy: index tumor volume (MTV), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and tumor contact length (TCL).

Materials and methods

This prospective study included 183 patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer. In all patients the MTV (ml), ADC (× 10−5 mm2/s) and TCL (mm) of the index tumor were registered at the preoperative MRI. Whole-mounted microscopical examination classified each patient as having either localized- or extraprostatic disease. The Youden index was used to identify the optimal cut-off values for predicting extraprostatic disease. Univariate regression analyses were conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results were stratified upon zonal location of the index tumor.

Results

Extraprostatic disease was identified in 103 (56%) patients. The risk of extraprostatic disease was nine times higher in peripheral zone tumors with ADC ≤ 89 (OR 9.1, 95% CI 4.2–19.6), five times higher in MTV ≥ 0.9 ml (OR 5.5, 95% CI 2.6–11.4) and five times higher in case of TCL ≥ 14 mm (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.3–10.2). None of the indirect MRI signs could predict extraprostatic disease for transition zone tumors.

Conclusion

The MTV, ADC and TCL are all significant predictors of extraprostatic disease for peripheral zone tumors, while none of the indirect signs were useful for transition zone tumors.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K et al (2014) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for detecting uni- and bilateral extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1362-x

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Obek C, Louis P, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1999) Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. JURO 161:494–498 (discussion 498–9)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA et al (2015) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R et al (1997) Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 202:697–702. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES et al (1994) Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 193:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim KH, Lim SK, Shin T-Y et al (2013) Tumor volume adds prognostic value in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20:3133–3139. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3016-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K et al (2014) Detection of the index tumor and tumor volume in prostate cancer using T2w and DW MRI alone. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12637

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L et al (2014) Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extra-capsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.084

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A et al (2016) Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: assessment at an optimal threshold. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:990–997. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R et al (2014) How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140524

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y et al (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbø HB (2012) MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 32:3383–3389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B et al (2010) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 24:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim C, Flood TA, Hakim SW et al (2016) Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and MR volumetry as independent associative factors for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in prostatic carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:726–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Granja MF, Pedraza CM, Flórez DC et al (2017) Predicting extracapsular involvement in prostate cancer through the tumor contact length and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiologia 59:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2017.03.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ranstam J (2008) Analysis units. Acta Radiol 49:371–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850801977312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2015) Extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with equivocal findings on T2-weighted imaging. Am J Roentgenol 204:W168–W175. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim CK, Park SY, Park JJ, Park BK (2014) Diffusion-weighted MRI as a predictor of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 202:W270–W276. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenkrantz AB, Chandarana H, Gilet A et al (2013) Prostate cancer: utility of diffusion-weighted imaging as a marker of side-specific risk of extracapsular extension. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:312–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lawrence EM, Gallagher FA, Barrett T et al (2014) Preoperative 3-T diffusion-weighted MRI for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of extracapsular extension in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 203:W280–W286. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11754

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Aker, Nydalen, Post box 4959, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Erik Rud

  2. Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Lien Diep

  3. Division of Surgery, Inflammatory Diseases and Transplantation, Department of urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Eduard Baco

Authors
  1. Erik Rud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lien Diep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eduard Baco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Rud.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rud, E., Diep, L. & Baco, E. A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient. World J Urol 36, 629–637 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2171-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2171-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation