Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Baris Turkbey2, Lambros Stamatakis1, Jennifer Logan1, Anthony N Hoang1, Annerleim Walton-Diaz1, Srinivas Vourganti1, Hong Truong1, Jochen Kruecker3, Maria J Merino4, Bradford J Wood5, Peter L Choyke2, Peter A Pinto6. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, New York. 4. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determine the usefulness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting prostate cancer, with a specific focus on detecting higher grade prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively 583 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent prostate biopsy at a single institution were evaluated. On multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, lesions were identified and scored as low, moderate or high suspicion for prostate cancer based on a validated scoring system. Magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies of magnetic resonance imaging lesions in addition to systematic 12-core biopsies were performed. Correlations between the highest assigned multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and presence of cancer and biopsy Gleason score on the first fusion biopsy session were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value were calculated and ROC curves were developed to assess the discriminative ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for various biopsy Gleason score cohorts. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and the presence of prostate cancer (p<0.0001). On multivariate analyses controlling for age, prostate specific antigen and prostate volume, increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion was an independent prognosticator of prostate cancer detection (OR 2.2, p<0.0001). Also, incremental increases in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score demonstrated stronger associations with cancer detection in patients with Gleason 7 or greater (OR 3.3, p<0.001) and Gleason 8 or greater (OR 4.2, p<0.0001) prostate cancer. Assessing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for all prostate cancer, biopsy Gleason score 7 or greater, and biopsy Gleason score 8 or greater separately via ROC analyses demonstrated increasing accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for higher grade disease (AUC 0.64, 0.69, and 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is a clinically useful modality to detect and characterize prostate cancer, particularly in men with higher grade disease.
PURPOSE: We determine the usefulness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting prostate cancer, with a specific focus on detecting higher grade prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively 583 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent prostate biopsy at a single institution were evaluated. On multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, lesions were identified and scored as low, moderate or high suspicion for prostate cancer based on a validated scoring system. Magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies of magnetic resonance imaging lesions in addition to systematic 12-core biopsies were performed. Correlations between the highest assigned multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and presence of cancer and biopsy Gleason score on the first fusion biopsy session were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value were calculated and ROC curves were developed to assess the discriminative ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for various biopsy Gleason score cohorts. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and the presence of prostate cancer (p<0.0001). On multivariate analyses controlling for age, prostate specific antigen and prostate volume, increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion was an independent prognosticator of prostate cancer detection (OR 2.2, p<0.0001). Also, incremental increases in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score demonstrated stronger associations with cancer detection in patients with Gleason 7 or greater (OR 3.3, p<0.001) and Gleason 8 or greater (OR 4.2, p<0.0001) prostate cancer. Assessing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for all prostate cancer, biopsy Gleason score 7 or greater, and biopsy Gleason score 8 or greater separately via ROC analyses demonstrated increasing accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for higher grade disease (AUC 0.64, 0.69, and 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is a clinically useful modality to detect and characterize prostate cancer, particularly in men with higher grade disease.
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Daniel M de Bruin; Willemien van den Bos; Martin J Brandt; Juliette F Velu; Mieke T J Bus; Dirk J Faber; Dilara Savci; Patricia J Zondervan; Theo M de Reijke; Pilar Laguna Pes; Jean de la Rosette; Ton G van Leeuwen Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-07-09
Authors: Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630