Raphaële Renard-Penna1, Géraldine Cancel-Tassin2, Eva Comperat3, Justine Varinot4, Priscilla Léon5, Morgan Roupret6, Pierre Mozer5, Christophe Vaessen5, Olivier Lucidarme7, Marc-Olivier Bitker5, Olivier Cussenot8. 1. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 2. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Centre Recherche Pathologies Prostatique, Paris, France. 3. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Centre Recherche Pathologies Prostatique, Paris, France. 4. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Pathology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 5. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Centre Recherche Pathologies Prostatique, Paris, France. 7. Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 8. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, ONCOTYPE-URO, GRC No. 5, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris 06, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and Centre Recherche Pathologies Prostatique, Paris, France. Electronic address: olivier.cussenot@tnn.aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We identified prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer by a radiogenomics strategy that integrates gene expression using the cell cycle progression score and medical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent from 106 men with prostate cancer, including 60% at low risk, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy was done and a cell cycle progression score was determined. The correlation between the results of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and Gleason grade or cell cycle progression score was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients with primary Gleason grade greater than 3 had a longer median maximal tumor diameter (13 vs 10 mm) and a lower median apparent diffusion coefficient (0.745 vs 0.88×10(-3) mm2 per second, each p=0.0001) than those with primary Gleason grade 3 or less. Maximal diameter 10 mm or greater (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 14.0, p=0.0012) and apparent diffusion coefficient 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second or less (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.0 to 18.7, p<0.0001) were significantly associated with primary Gleason grade greater than 3. The combined measure of maximal diameter less than 10 mm and apparent diffusion coefficient greater than 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second identified only index lesions harboring primary Gleason grade 3. However, 7 of those lesions showed a molecular pattern of high risk lethal prostate cancer (cell cycle progression score greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is able to predict low and high risk Gleason scores in the tumor. However, the cell cycle progression score did not completely match the imaging result. These findings suggest that management of early stages prostate cancer could strongly benefit by performing magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy coupled with molecular analysis.
PURPOSE: We identified prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer by a radiogenomics strategy that integrates gene expression using the cell cycle progression score and medical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent from 106 men with prostate cancer, including 60% at low risk, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy was done and a cell cycle progression score was determined. The correlation between the results of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and Gleason grade or cell cycle progression score was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS:Patients with primary Gleason grade greater than 3 had a longer median maximal tumor diameter (13 vs 10 mm) and a lower median apparent diffusion coefficient (0.745 vs 0.88×10(-3) mm2 per second, each p=0.0001) than those with primary Gleason grade 3 or less. Maximal diameter 10 mm or greater (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 14.0, p=0.0012) and apparent diffusion coefficient 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second or less (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.0 to 18.7, p<0.0001) were significantly associated with primary Gleason grade greater than 3. The combined measure of maximal diameter less than 10 mm and apparent diffusion coefficient greater than 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second identified only index lesions harboring primary Gleason grade 3. However, 7 of those lesions showed a molecular pattern of high risk lethal prostate cancer (cell cycle progression score greater than 0). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is able to predict low and high risk Gleason scores in the tumor. However, the cell cycle progression score did not completely match the imaging result. These findings suggest that management of early stages prostate cancer could strongly benefit by performing magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy coupled with molecular analysis.
Authors: D Lee; J Fontugne; N Gumpeni; K Park; T Y MacDonald; B D Robinson; A Sboner; M A Rubin; J M Mosquera; C E Barbieri Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Rodrigo Delgadillo; John C Ford; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Dal Pra; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Priscilla Léon; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Sara Drouin; Marie Audouin; Justine Varinot; Eva Comperat; Xavier Cathelineau; François Rozet; Christophe Vaessens; Steven Stone; Julia Reid; Zaina Sangale; Patrick Korman; Morgan Rouprêt; Gaelle Fromond-Hankard; Olivier Cussenot Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Katja Pinker; Fuki Shitano; Evis Sala; Richard K Do; Robert J Young; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Elizabeth J Sutton; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Edward M Lawrence; Anne Y Warren; Andrew N Priest; Tristan Barrett; Debra A Goldman; Andrew B Gill; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Evis Sala; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Antonio C Westphalen; Niloufar Ameli; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Phillip G Febbo; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240