Literature DB >> 25257029

Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.

Jesse D Le1, Nelly Tan2, Eugene Shkolyar3, David Y Lu4, Lorna Kwan1, Leonard S Marks1, Jiaoti Huang4, Daniel J A Margolis2, Steven S Raman2, Robert E Reiter5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer (CaP). Understanding the limitations of tumor detection, particularly in multifocal disease, is important in its clinical application.
OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of CaP detection by mp-MRI as confirmed by whole-mount histopathology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study was performed of 122 consecutive men who underwent mp-MRI before radical prostatectomy at a single referral academic center. A genitourinary radiologist and pathologist collectively determined concordance. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The odds of tumor detection were calculated for clinical, MRI, and histopathologic variables using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 122 patients had 283 unique histologically confirmed CaP tumor foci. Gleason score was 6 in 21 (17%), 7 in 88 (72%), and ≥8 in 13 (11%) patients. Of the 122 cases, 44 (36%) had solitary and 78 (64%) had multifocal tumors. Overall mp-MRI sensitivity for tumor detection was 47% (132/283), with increased sensitivity for larger (102/141 [72%] >1.0 cm), higher-grade (96/134 [72%] Gleason ≥7) tumors, and index tumors (98/122 [80%]). Index tumor status, size, and prostate weight were significant predictors of detection in a multivariate analysis, and multifocality did not adversely impact detection of index tumors. A prostatectomy population was necessary by design, which may limit the ability to generalize these results.
CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity for tumor detection increased with tumor size and grade. Index tumor status and tumor size were the strongest predictors of tumor detection, regardless of tumor focality. Some 80% of index tumors were detected, but nonindex tumor detection, even of high-grade lesions, was poor. These findings have important implications for focal therapy. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We evaluated the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect cancer in patients undergoing prostatectomy. We found that tumor size and grade were important predictors of tumor detection, and although cancer is often multifocal, MRI is often able to detect the worst focus of cancer.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25257029     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  104 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: The applicability of textural analysis of MRI for grading.

Authors:  Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

Review 3.  Current trends and new frontiers in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Melissa H Mendez; Daniel Y Joh; Rajan Gupta; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  A biopsy-integrated algorithm for determining Gleason 6 upgrading risk stratifies risk of active surveillance failure in prostate cancer.

Authors:  M L Blute; J M Shiau; M Truong; Fangfang Shi; E J Abel; T M Downs; D F Jarrard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Utility of Multiparametric MRI for Predicting Residual Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer After Focal Laser Ablation.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; David S K Lu; Mitch Tuttle; Daniel J Margolis; Fuad F ElKhoury; James Sayre; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Addressing the need for repeat prostate biopsy: new technology and approaches.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard.

Authors:  Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-11

8.  [High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) : Importance in the treatment of prostate cancer].

Authors:  R Ganzer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 9.  Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radiohalogenated PET and Therapeutic Agents for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Steven P Rowe; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier; Markus Dietlein; Michael A Gorin; Michael R Zalutsky; Martin G Pomper
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.