Tom S Feng1, Ali Reza Sharif-Afshar1, Jonathan Wu1, Quanlin Li2, Daniel Luthringer3, Rola Saouaf4, Hyung L Kim5. 1. Division of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Department of Radiology, 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 compare the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) with the Partin tables and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomogram for predicting extracapsular extension (ECE) in prostate cancer and to create a tool for clinicians to estimate pathologic ECE risk. METHODS: A retrospective review of 112 patients who underwent 3T MP-MRI of the prostate and radical prostatectomy was performed. Regression analyses were carried out to identify predictors of ECE. Predictive accuracy of models based on nomogram and MP-MRI were compared. RESULTS: A total of 33 of patients (29%) had ECE on MP-MRI whereas 26 patients (23%) had ECE on final pathology. Mean age was 62.8 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 8.2 ng/dL. MRI was a significant predictor of ECE that was independent of age, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, clinical stage, and percent positive cores on biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MP-MRI for ECE were 84.6%, 87.2%, 66.7%, and 94.9%, respectively. Areas under the curve for Partin and MSK nomograms for predicting ECE were 0.85 and 0.86, respectively. Area under the curve increased to 0.92 and 0.94, respectively, when MP-MRI was added to each nomogram. We provide an online tool that integrates Partin or MSK nomogram results with ECE status determined from MRI to predict pathologic ECE. Within the typical range of risks for ECE provided by the clinical nomograms (ie, 15%-40%), MRI was useful for predicting pathologic ECE. CONCLUSION: MP-MRI may be a useful adjunct for clinically staging prostate cancer. MP-MRI improved accuracy of existing clinical nomograms for prediction of pathologic ECE.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) with the Partin tables and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomogram for predicting extracapsular extension (ECE) in prostate cancer and to create a tool for clinicians to estimate pathologic ECE risk. METHODS: A retrospective review of 112 patients who underwent 3T MP-MRI of the prostate and radical prostatectomy was performed. Regression analyses were carried out to identify predictors of ECE. Predictive accuracy of models based on nomogram and MP-MRI were compared. RESULTS: A total of 33 of patients (29%) had ECE on MP-MRI whereas 26 patients (23%) had ECE on final pathology. Mean age was 62.8 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 8.2 ng/dL. MRI was a significant predictor of ECE that was independent of age, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, clinical stage, and percent positive cores on biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MP-MRI for ECE were 84.6%, 87.2%, 66.7%, and 94.9%, respectively. Areas under the curve for Partin and MSK nomograms for predicting ECE were 0.85 and 0.86, respectively. Area under the curve increased to 0.92 and 0.94, respectively, when MP-MRI was added to each nomogram. We provide an online tool that integrates Partin or MSK nomogram results with ECE status determined from MRI to predict pathologic ECE. Within the typical range of risks for ECE provided by the clinical nomograms (ie, 15%-40%), MRI was useful for predicting pathologic ECE. CONCLUSION: MP-MRI may be a useful adjunct for clinically staging prostate cancer. MP-MRI improved accuracy of existing clinical nomograms for prediction of pathologic ECE.
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Rossano Girometti; Martina Pancot; Marco Andrea Signor; Martina Urbani; Luca Balestreri; Chiara Zuiani Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Zhe Tian; Jonas Schiffmann; Shahrokh F Shariat; Nazareno Suardi; Montorsi Francesco; Briganti Alberto; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Lars Budäus; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie Harmon; Clayton Smith; Jonathan Bloom; Marcin Czarniecki; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Kareem Rayn; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105