1
|
Lee CM, Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Ancillary imaging and clinical features for the characterization of prostate lesions: A proposed approach to reduce false positives. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 53:1887-1897. [PMID: 33377264 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 12/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
The relatively low specificity and positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) can lead to considerable false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies. The aim of this study was to propose ancillary features (AFs) indicating clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) or benign tissues in PI-RADS category ≥3 lesions and determine the usefulness of these AFs in reducing false-positive assessments of suspicious lesions in men at csPCa risk. This was a retrospective study, which included 199 men. A 3T, including turbo spin echo T2 -weighted, echo-planar diffusion-weighted, and spoiled gradient echo dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images, was used. Five AFs (prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 ng/mL2 ; size ≥10 mm; heterogeneous T2 signal intensity; circumscribed nodule in the junction of peripheral and transition zone; and DCE time curves) indicating csPCa or non-csPCa were evaluated by three independent readers. The sensitivity and specificity of each AF were calculated. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using κ statistics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine significant AFs. The reduction in positive call rates and csPCa detection rates with combined AF use were calculated and compared with the findings obtained with PI-RADS use alone. The sensitivities and specificities of the AFs indicating csPCa were 72.1%-96.5% and 27.4%-75.2% for reader 1, 66.3%-96.5% and 23.9%-62.0% for reader 2, and 67.4%-96.5% and 34.5%-78.8% for reader 3, with moderate to substantial inter-reader agreement (Fleiss κ, 0.551-0.643). The combined use of two or more AFs for assessing PI-RADS ≥3 lesions resulted in a 19.6%-30.7% reduction in positive calls (p < .05) compared to PI-RADS use alone while preserving the csPCa detection rates (p ≥ .06) for three readers. The use of AFs in combination with PI-RADS can reduce positive calls and false positives without csPCa under-detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chul-Min Lee
- Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kye Jin Park
- Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Mi-Hyun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jeong Kon Kim
- Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rouviere O, Moldovan PC. The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Asian J Urol 2018; 6:137-145. [PMID: 31061799 PMCID: PMC6488694 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2018] [Revised: 10/26/2018] [Accepted: 10/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has shown excellent sensitivity for Gleason ≥7 cancers, especially when their volume is ≥0.5 mL. As a result, performing an mpMRI before prostate biopsy could improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by adding targeted biopsies to systematic biopsies. Currently, there is a consensus that targeted biopsies improve the detection of csPCa in the repeat biopsy setting and at confirmatory biopsy in patients considering active surveillance. Several prospective multicentric controlled trials recently showed that targeted biopsy also improved csPCa detection in biopsy-naïve patients. The role of mpMRI and targeted biopsy during the follow-up of active surveillance remains unclear. Whether systematic biopsy could be omitted in case of negative mpMRI is also a matter of controversy. mpMRI did show excellent negative predictive values (NPV) in the literature, however, since NPV depends on the prevalence of the disease, negative mpMRI findings should be interpreted in the light of a priori risk for csPCa of the patient. Nomograms combining mpMRI findings and classical risk predictors (age, prostate-specific antigen density, digital rectal examination, etc.) will probably be developed in the future to decide whether a prostate biopsy should be obtained. mpMRI has a good specificity for detecting T3 stage cancers, but its sensitivity is low. It should therefore not be used routinely for staging purposes in low-risk patients. Nomograms combining mpMRI findings and other clinical and biochemical data will also probably be used in the future to better assess the risk of T3 stage disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivier Rouviere
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.,Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.,Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - Paul Cezar Moldovan
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.,Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.,Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2018; 20:100-109. [PMID: 30470502 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 625] [Impact Index Per Article: 104.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2018] [Revised: 07/20/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients. METHODS In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3-36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5-38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8-8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6-11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria). INTERPRETATION There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy. FUNDING French National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
|
4
|
Lotte R, Lafourcade A, Mozer P, Conort P, Barret E, Comperat E, Ezziane M, de Guibert PHJ, Tavolaro S, Belin L, Boudghene F, Lucidarme O, Renard-Penna R. Multiparametric MRI for Suspected Recurrent Prostate Cancer after HIFU:Is DCE still needed? Eur Radiol 2018; 28:3760-3769. [DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5352-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2017] [Accepted: 01/23/2018] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
|
5
|
Gaur S, Harmon S, Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Calio BP, Sugano D, Sidana A, Merino MJ, Pinto PA, Wood BJ, Shih JH, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 48:1326-1335. [PMID: 29603833 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2018] [Accepted: 03/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. PURPOSE To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. STUDY TYPE Prospective. POPULATION In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015-May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH 3T mpMRI (T2 W, diffusion-weighted [DW], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map, b-2000 DWI acquisition, and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] MRI). ASSESSMENT One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. STATISTICAL TEST In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems. RESULTS In 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6-113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44-84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76-78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P < 0.01 for both), with the greatest difference between the scoring systems seen in lesions scored category 4 (CS TDRs: in-house 65%, PI-RADSv2 22.1%). For lesions categorized as PI-RADSv2 = 4, characterization of suspicious/indeterminate extraprostatic extension (EPE) and equivocal findings across all mpMRI sequences contributed to significantly different TDRs for both systems (TDR range 19-75%, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION PI-RADSv2 behaves similarly to an existing validated system that relies on the number of sequences on which a lesion is seen. This prospective evaluation suggests that sequence positivity and suspicion of EPE can enhance PI-RADSv2 category 4 cancer detection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1326-1335.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia Gaur
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Stephanie Harmon
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.,Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, 21702
| | - Sherif Mehralivand
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Sandra Bednarova
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Brian P Calio
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Dordaneh Sugano
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Abhinav Sidana
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Maria J Merino
- Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Bradford J Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Joanna H Shih
- Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Peter L Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|