Tom S Feng1, Ali Reza Sharif-Afshar1, Steven C Smith2, Joseph Miller3, Christopher Nguyen4, Quanlin Li4, Daniel Luthringer2, Debiao Li4, Rola Saouaf3, Hyung L Kim5. 1. Division of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Radiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Division of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: KimHL@cshs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) for identifying focal and established extracapsular extension (ECE) in various zones of the prostate. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2013, 342 patients underwent MP-MRI of the prostate (3T, no endorectal coil with axial perfusion and diffusion images). The findings of the images were reported as negative, suspicious, or positive for ECE by a single expert radiologist. Radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to confirm the size and the location of ECE and further defined as focal or established ECE. Established ECE included extension that was multifocal or involving more than 5 glands. The accuracy of MRI in localizing focal and established ECE to each zone of the prostate was determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ECE. RESULTS: We identified 112 patients who underwent prostate MP-MRI and radical prostatectomy. MRI findings considered suspicious or definite for ECE accurately predicted pathologic ECE (P<0.001). MP-MRI identified established ECE but not focal ECE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MP-MRI for established ECE were 70.7%, 90.6%, 57.1%, and 95.1%, respectively. MRI identified ECE to the left vs. right side as well as each zone of the prostate; however, sensitivity was lowest at the apex. On multivariate analysis, MRI was a significant predictor of ECE that was independent of prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical stage. CONCLUSION: MP-MRI is useful for identifying established but not focal ECE in all zones of the prostate. MRI was a significant independent predictor of established ECE and may be a useful adjunct in staging prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To define the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) for identifying focal and established extracapsular extension (ECE) in various zones of the prostate. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2013, 342 patients underwent MP-MRI of the prostate (3T, no endorectal coil with axial perfusion and diffusion images). The findings of the images were reported as negative, suspicious, or positive for ECE by a single expert radiologist. Radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to confirm the size and the location of ECE and further defined as focal or established ECE. Established ECE included extension that was multifocal or involving more than 5 glands. The accuracy of MRI in localizing focal and established ECE to each zone of the prostate was determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ECE. RESULTS: We identified 112 patients who underwent prostate MP-MRI and radical prostatectomy. MRI findings considered suspicious or definite for ECE accurately predicted pathologic ECE (P<0.001). MP-MRI identified established ECE but not focal ECE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MP-MRI for established ECE were 70.7%, 90.6%, 57.1%, and 95.1%, respectively. MRI identified ECE to the left vs. right side as well as each zone of the prostate; however, sensitivity was lowest at the apex. On multivariate analysis, MRI was a significant predictor of ECE that was independent of prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical stage. CONCLUSION: MP-MRI is useful for identifying established but not focal ECE in all zones of the prostate. MRI was a significant independent predictor of established ECE and may be a useful adjunct in staging prostate cancer.
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Ines Nikolovski; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Evis Sala; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael W Kattan; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Ottavio de Cobelli; Daniela Terracciano; Elena Tagliabue; Sara Raimondi; Danilo Bottero; Antonio Cioffi; Barbara Jereczek-Fossa; Giuseppe Petralia; Giovanni Cordima; Gilberto Laurino Almeida; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Carlo Buonerba; Deliu Victor Matei; Giuseppe Renne; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Matteo Ferro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ali-Reza Sharif-Afshar; Christopher Nguyen; Tom S Feng; Lucas Payor; Zhaoyang Fan; Rola Saouaf; Debiao Li; Hyung L Kim Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Geoffrey S Gaunay; Vinay Patel; Paras Shah; Daniel Moreira; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Eran Ben-Levi; Robert Villani; Manish A Vira Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2016-11-19
Authors: Sasha C Druskin; Jen-Jane Liu; Allen Young; Zhaoyong Feng; Seyed S Dianat; Wesley W Ludwig; Bruce J Trock; Katarzyna J Macura; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2017-04-18