M Abd-Alazeez1, A Kirkham2, H U Ahmed3, M Arya4, E Anastasiadis5, S C Charman6, A Freeman7, M Emberton3. 1. 1] Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK [2] Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt. 2. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. 1] Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK [2] Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. 4. 1] Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK [2] Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK. 5. Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK. 6. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, UK. 7. Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to serve as a non-invasive triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine the performance characteristics of mpMRI in men at risk before the first biopsy using 5 mm template prostate mapping (TPM) as the reference standard. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ≥3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ≥4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ≥4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ≥4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed 'any cancer' and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41-82), 5.8 ng ml(-1) (1.2-20), 40 ml (16-137) and 41 cores (20-93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88-99%), 23% (17-29%), 34% (28-40%), 89% (79-98%) and 0.72 (0.65-0.79), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to serve as a non-invasive triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine the performance characteristics of mpMRI in men at risk before the first biopsy using 5 mm template prostate mapping (TPM) as the reference standard. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ≥3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ≥4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ≥4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ≥4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed 'any cancer' and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41-82), 5.8 ng ml(-1) (1.2-20), 40 ml (16-137) and 41 cores (20-93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88-99%), 23% (17-29%), 34% (28-40%), 89% (79-98%) and 0.72 (0.65-0.79), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.
Authors: Tineke Wolters; Monique J Roobol; Pim J van Leeuwen; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Robert F Hoedemaeker; Geert J L H van Leenders; Fritz H Schröder; Theodorus H van der Kwast Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E David Crawford; Kyle O Rove; Al B Barqawi; Paul D Maroni; Priya N Werahera; Craig A Baer; Hari K Koul; Cory A Rove; M Scott Lucia; Francisco G La Rosa Journal: Prostate Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Lucy A M Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Manit Arya; Tim Briggs; Susan C Charman; Alex Freeman; James Gelister; Charles Jameson; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Jan van der Muelen; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Geert M Villeirs; Gert O De Meerleer; Pieter J De Visschere; Valerie H Fonteyne; Antony C Verbaeys; Willem Oosterlinck Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Richard G Hindley; Louise Dickinson; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Mahua Sahu; Rebecca Scott; Clare Allen; Jan Van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; N Ramachandran; N Dikaios; H U Ahmed; M Emberton; A Kirkham; M Arya; S Taylor; S Halligan; S Punwani Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak Journal: Radiologe Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860