Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for detecting uni- and bilateral extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer

Erik Rud, Dagmar Klotz, Kristin Rennesund, Eduard Baco, Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen, Lien My Diep, Aud Svindland, Lars Magne Eri, Heidi B Eggesbø, Erik Rud, Dagmar Klotz, Kristin Rennesund, Eduard Baco, Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen, Lien My Diep, Aud Svindland, Lars Magne Eri, Heidi B Eggesbø

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting uni- and bilateral extraprostatic disease (T3) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods: This prospective study included 199 patients with biopsy-proven PCa who underwent MRI prior to radical prostatectomy from December 2009 to July 2012. Extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion represented T3 disease, and was classified as uni- (right or left) or bilateral. MRI detection of T3 disease was assessed by descriptive statistics and odds ratio (OR). Whole-mount histopathology was used as the reference standard.

Results: The overall prevalence of pT3 was 105/199 (53 %), unilateral in 81/105 (77 %) and bilateral in 24/105 (23 %). The sensitivity of MRI for predicting pT3 was 76/105 (72 %), specificity 61/94 (65 %), accuracy 137/199 (69 %), and OR 4.8 (95 % CI 2.7-8.8). A complete match with respect to the laterality of pT3 was found in 52/105 (50 %), and the side-specific accuracy was 113/199 (57 %). When unilateral pT3 was found, MRI falsely suggested contralateral T3 in 4/81 (5 %) and bilateral in 8/81 (10 %). When bilateral pT3 was found, MRI falsely suggested unilateral T3 in 12/24 (50 %).

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detected 72 % of all patients with T3 disease, and the accuracy dropped from 69 to 57 % when considering the laterality of T3. Thus far, the MRI technique is not yet adequate to meet the increasing demands of accurate diagnosis of locally advanced disease, and the contemporary MRI staging should be careful.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01347320.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustrates the correlation between clinical, radiological, and pathological T classification. In patients with cT1, the sensitivity for predicting T3 disease was 55 %, specificity 70 %, and accuracy 64 %. Moreover, in patients with cT2, the sensitivity was 86 %, specificity 58 %, and accuracy 76 %. cT, rT, and pT: clinical, radiological, and pathological T classification
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A 63-year-old patient with PSA 14.0 ng/mL, cT1c, and biopsy GS 7a. Axial T2-weighted images (a, c, d, f) and axial ADC color overlays (b, e) demonstrate tumors on both sides (green arrowheads). MRI suggested right-sided EPE. Whole-mount histopathology (c, f) verified the existence of both tumors, although pEPE was present on the left side. The surgical margins were negative
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A 62-year-old patient with PSA 5.8 ng/mL, cT2, and biopsy GS 8. Axial T2-weighted image (a) demonstrates a large tumor affecting both lobes, although dominating the right side. Right-sided EPE and bilateral SVI (green arrowheads in c and d) were suggested at MRI, e.g., bilateral T3. Histopathology confirmed right-sided pEPE (b) (blue arrows), although no pSVI was present. The surgical margins were positive on the right side

References

    1. Obek C, Louis P, Civantos F, Soloway MS (1999) Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. JURO 161:494–8, discussion 498–9
    1. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, et al. Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer. JURO. 1994;152:1506–1509.
    1. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2010;107:1411–1418. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09808.x.
    1. Hegde JV, Chen MH, Mulkern RV et al (2013) Preoperative 3-Tesla multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance imaging findings and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:101–107
    1. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. 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. 2013;190:1728–1734. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021.
    1. Brajtbord JS, Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging has limited clinical ability to preoperatively predict pT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;107:1419–1424. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09599.x.
    1. Rosenkrantz AB, Chandarana H, Gilet A, et al. Prostate cancer: utility of diffusion-weighted imaging as a marker of side-specific risk of extracapsular extension. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:312–319. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23972.
    1. Kim B, Breau RH, Papadatos D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of surface coil magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T for local staging of elevated risk prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2010;4:257–262. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.09103.
    1. Graser A, Heuck A, Sommer B, et al. Per-sextant localization and staging of prostate cancer: correlation of imaging findings with whole-mount step section histopathology. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:84–90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0401.
    1. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243:28–53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2431030580.
    1. 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. doi:10.1111/bju.12637
    1. Cornud F, Rouanne M, Beuvon F et al (2011) Endorectal 3D T2-weighted 1 mm-slice thickness MRI for prostate cancer staging at 1.5Tesla: should we reconsider the indirects signs of extracapsular extension according to the D’Amico tumor risk criteria?. Eur J Radiol 1–7
    1. Osunkoya AO. Update on prostate pathology. Pathology. 2012;44:391–406. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e32835657cf.
    1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
    1. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. 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. 2010;24:26–38. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.158.
    1. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, et al. International society of urological pathology (isup) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2010;24:39–47. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.160.
    1. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2001;166:2185–2188. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65531-0.
    1. McClure TD, Margolis DJA, Reiter RE, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology. 2012;262:874–883. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11103504.
    1. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 2004;100:2655–2663. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20319.
    1. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Kniess M et al (2012) Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol
    1. Brown JA, Rodin DM, Harisinghani M, Dahl DM. Impact of preoperative endorectal MRI stage classification on neurovascular bundle sparing aggressiveness and the radical prostatectomy positive margin rate. URO. 2010;27:174–179.
    1. Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014
    1. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1055–1065. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8.
    1. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al. Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2007;24:16–25. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.156.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다