OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative multiparametric MRI with extracapsular extension (ECE) risk-scoring in the assessment of prostate cancer tumour stage (T-stage) and prediction of ECE at final pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven patients with clinically localised prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Multiparametric MRI was performed prior to prostatectomy, and evaluated according to the ESUR MR prostate guidelines by two different readers. An MRI clinical T-stage (cTMRI), an ECE risk score, and suspicion of ECE based on tumour characteristics and personal opinion were assigned. Histopathological prostatectomy results were standard reference. RESULTS: Histopathology and cTMRI showed a spearman rho correlation of 0.658 (p < 0.001) and a weighted kappa = 0.585 [CI 0.44;0.73](reader A). ECE was present in 31/87 (36 %) patients. ECE risk-scoring showed an AUC of 0.65-0.86 on ROC-curve for both readers, with sensitivity and specificity of 81 % and 78 % at best cutoff level (reader A), respectively. When tumour characteristics were influenced by personal opinion, the sensitivity and specificity for prediction of ECE changed to 61 %-74 % and 77 %-88 % for the readers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI with ECE risk-scoring is an accurate diagnostic technique in determining prostate cancer clinical tumour stage and ECE at final pathology. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MRI is an accurate diagnostic technique for preoperative prostate cancer staging • ECE risk scoring predicts extracapsular tumour extension at final pathology • ECE risk scoring shows an AUC of 0.86 on the ROC-curve • ECE risk scoring shows a moderate inter-reader agreement (K = 0.45) • Multiparametric MRI provides essential knowledge for optimal clinical management.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of preoperative multiparametric MRI with extracapsular extension (ECE) risk-scoring in the assessment of prostate cancer tumour stage (T-stage) and prediction of ECE at final pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven patients with clinically localised prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Multiparametric MRI was performed prior to prostatectomy, and evaluated according to the ESUR MR prostate guidelines by two different readers. An MRI clinical T-stage (cTMRI), an ECE risk score, and suspicion of ECE based on tumour characteristics and personal opinion were assigned. Histopathological prostatectomy results were standard reference. RESULTS: Histopathology and cTMRI showed a spearman rho correlation of 0.658 (p < 0.001) and a weighted kappa = 0.585 [CI 0.44;0.73](reader A). ECE was present in 31/87 (36 %) patients. ECE risk-scoring showed an AUC of 0.65-0.86 on ROC-curve for both readers, with sensitivity and specificity of 81 % and 78 % at best cutoff level (reader A), respectively. When tumour characteristics were influenced by personal opinion, the sensitivity and specificity for prediction of ECE changed to 61 %-74 % and 77 %-88 % for the readers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI with ECE risk-scoring is an accurate diagnostic technique in determining prostate cancer clinical tumour stage and ECE at final pathology. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MRI is an accurate diagnostic technique for preoperative prostate cancer staging • ECE risk scoring predicts extracapsular tumour extension at final pathology • ECE risk scoring shows an AUC of 0.86 on the ROC-curve • ECE risk scoring shows a moderate inter-reader agreement (K = 0.45) • Multiparametric MRI provides essential knowledge for optimal clinical management.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Hersh Chandarana; Anthony Gilet; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: John V Hegde; Ming-Hui Chen; Robert V Mulkern; Fiona M Fennessy; Anthony V D'Amico; Clare M C Tempany Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; John E Musser; Ronald J Caras; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan A Coleman; John P Mulhall; Raul O Parra; Peter T Scardino; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lars A R Reisæter; Ole J Halvorsen; Christian Beisland; Alfred Honoré; Karsten Gravdal; Are Losnegård; Jan Monssen; Lars A Akslen; Martin Biermann Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-01-17
Authors: Jan Tkac; Tomas Bertok; Michal Hires; Eduard Jane; Lenka Lorencova; Peter Kasak Journal: Expert Rev Proteomics Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.940
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