Daniel N Costa1, Yair Lotan2, Neil M Rofsky3, Claus Roehrborn2, Alexander Liu3, Brad Hornberger2, Yin Xi3, Franto Francis4, Ivan Pedrosa3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: daniel.costa@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assess the performance of prospectively assigned magnetic resonance imaging based Likert scale scores for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, and analyze the pre-biopsy imaging variables associated with increased cancer detection using targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective review of prospectively generated data including men with abnormal multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (at least 1 Likert score 3 or greater lesion) who underwent subsequent targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy, we determined the association between different imaging variables (Likert score, lesion size, lesion location, prostate volume, radiologist experience) and targeted biopsy positivity rate. We also compared the detection of clinically significant cancer according to Likert scale scores. Tumors with high volume (50% or more of any core) Gleason score 3+4 or any tumor with greater Gleason score were considered clinically significant. Each lesion served as the elementary unit for analysis. We used logistic regression for univariate and multivariate (stepwise selection) analysis to assess for an association between targeted biopsy positivity rate and each tested variable. The relationship between Likert scale and Gleason score was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 161 men with 244 lesions met the study eligibility criteria. Targeted biopsies diagnosed cancer in 41% (66 of 161) of the men and 41% (99 of 244) of the lesions. The Likert score was the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity (OR 3.7, p <0.0001). Other imaging findings associated with a higher targeted biopsy positivity rate included smaller prostate volume (OR 0.7, p <0.01), larger lesion size (OR 2.2, p <0.001) and anterior location (OR 2.0, p=0.01). On multiple logistic regression analysis Likert score, lesion size and prostate volume were significant predictors of targeted biopsy positivity. Higher Likert scores were also associated with increased detection of clinically significant tumors (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Likert scale score used to convey the degree of suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity and of the presence of clinically significant tumor.
PURPOSE: We assess the performance of prospectively assigned magnetic resonance imaging based Likert scale scores for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, and analyze the pre-biopsy imaging variables associated with increased cancer detection using targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective review of prospectively generated data including men with abnormal multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (at least 1 Likert score 3 or greater lesion) who underwent subsequent targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy, we determined the association between different imaging variables (Likert score, lesion size, lesion location, prostate volume, radiologist experience) and targeted biopsy positivity rate. We also compared the detection of clinically significant cancer according to Likert scale scores. Tumors with high volume (50% or more of any core) Gleason score 3+4 or any tumor with greater Gleason score were considered clinically significant. Each lesion served as the elementary unit for analysis. We used logistic regression for univariate and multivariate (stepwise selection) analysis to assess for an association between targeted biopsy positivity rate and each tested variable. The relationship between Likert scale and Gleason score was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 161 men with 244 lesions met the study eligibility criteria. Targeted biopsies diagnosed cancer in 41% (66 of 161) of the men and 41% (99 of 244) of the lesions. The Likert score was the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity (OR 3.7, p <0.0001). Other imaging findings associated with a higher targeted biopsy positivity rate included smaller prostate volume (OR 0.7, p <0.01), larger lesion size (OR 2.2, p <0.001) and anterior location (OR 2.0, p=0.01). On multiple logistic regression analysis Likert score, lesion size and prostate volume were significant predictors of targeted biopsy positivity. Higher Likert scores were also associated with increased detection of clinically significant tumors (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Likert scale score used to convey the degree of suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity and of the presence of clinically significant tumor.
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: Akhil Muthigi; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Nabeel Shakir; Meet Kadakia; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Francesca Mertan; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Toshitaka Shin; Thomas B Smyth; Osamu Ukimura; Nariman Ahmadi; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Chisato Ohe; Masakatsu Oishi; Hiromitsu Mimata; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Daniel N Costa; Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa; Lauren Kolski; Yair Lotan; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Yin Xi; Franto Francis; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Guilherme C Mariotti; Priscila M Falsarella; Rodrigo G Garcia; Marcos R G Queiroz; Gustavo C Lemos; Ronaldo H Baroni Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Noah E Canvasser; Fernando U Kay; Yin Xi; Daniella F Pinho; Daniel Costa; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Gaurav Khatri; John R Leyendecker; Takeshi Yokoo; Aaron Lay; Nicholas Kavoussi; Ersin Koseoglu; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan R Dillman; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Ethan A Smith; Michael A DiPietro; Ramon Sanchez; Vera DeMatos-Maillard; Jeremy Adler; Bin Zhang; Andrew T Trout Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-04-18
Authors: Heling Zhou; Rami R Hallac; Qing Yuan; Yao Ding; Zhongwei Zhang; Xian-Jin Xie; Franto Francis; Claus G Roehrborn; R Douglas Sims; Daniel N Costa; Ganesh V Raj; Ralph P Mason Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2017-08-24