Karim Chamie1, Geoffrey A Sonn2, David S Finley3, Nelly Tan4, Daniel J A Margolis4, Steven S Raman4, Shyam Natarajan5, Jiaoti Huang6, Robert E Reiter2. 1. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: kchamie@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Center for Advanced Surgical and Interventional Technology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 6. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging might improve the identification of patients with higher risk disease at diagnosis and thereby reduce the incidence of undergrading or understaging. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 115 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. We used Epstein's criteria of insignificant disease with and without a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameter (apparent diffusion coefficient) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, as well as negative and positive predictive values [NPV and PPV] across varying definitions of clinically significant cancer based on Gleason grade and tumor volume (0.2 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.3 mL) on whole-mount prostate specimens. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the incremental benefit of MRI in delineating significant cancer. RESULTS: The majority had a prostate-specific antigen from 4.1-10.0 (67%), normal rectal examinations (90%), biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 (68%), and ≤ 2 cores positive (55%). Of the 58 patients pathologically staged with Gleason 7 or pT3 disease at prostatectomy, Epstein's criteria alone missed 12 patients (sensitivity of 79% and NPV of 68%). Addition of apparent diffusion coefficient improved the sensitivity and NPV for predicting significant disease at prostatectomy to 93% and 84%, respectively. MRI improved detection of large Gleason 6 (≥ 1.3 mL, P = .006) or Gleason ≥ 7 lesions of any size (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Integration of MRI with existing clinical staging criteria helps identify patients with significant cancer. Clinicians should consider utilizing MRI in the decision-making process.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging might improve the identification of patients with higher risk disease at diagnosis and thereby reduce the incidence of undergrading or understaging. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 115 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. We used Epstein's criteria of insignificant disease with and without a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameter (apparent diffusion coefficient) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, as well as negative and positive predictive values [NPV and PPV] across varying definitions of clinically significant cancer based on Gleason grade and tumor volume (0.2 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.3 mL) on whole-mount prostate specimens. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the incremental benefit of MRI in delineating significant cancer. RESULTS: The majority had a prostate-specific antigen from 4.1-10.0 (67%), normal rectal examinations (90%), biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 (68%), and ≤ 2 cores positive (55%). Of the 58 patients pathologically staged with Gleason 7 or pT3 disease at prostatectomy, Epstein's criteria alone missed 12 patients (sensitivity of 79% and NPV of 68%). Addition of apparent diffusion coefficient improved the sensitivity and NPV for predicting significant disease at prostatectomy to 93% and 84%, respectively. MRI improved detection of large Gleason 6 (≥ 1.3 mL, P = .006) or Gleason ≥ 7 lesions of any size (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Integration of MRI with existing clinical staging criteria helps identify patients with significant cancer. Clinicians should consider utilizing MRI in the decision-making process.
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Jonas Hugosson; Antti S Rannikko; Teuvo L Tammela; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Darko Pucar; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Picchio; P Mapelli; V Panebianco; P Castellucci; E Incerti; A Briganti; G Gandaglia; M Kirienko; F Barchetti; C Nanni; F Montorsi; L Gianolli; S Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rajan T Gupta; Christopher R Kauffman; Kirema Garcia-Reyes; Mark L Palmeri; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nikhil J Dhinagar; William Speier; Karthik V Sarma; Alex Raman; Adam Kinnaird; Steven S Raman; Leonard S Marks; Corey W Arnold Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-12-29