Andrew B Rosenkrantz1, Alampady K Shanbhogue1, Annie Wang1, Max Xiangtian Kong2, James S Babb1, Samir S Taneja3. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the length of capsular contact of dominant lesions on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) and to determine a threshold value to apply in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing 3T prostate MRI before prostatectomy were included. Two independent readers (R1, R2) recorded for each lobe the presence or absence of capsular irregularity on T2 -weighted imaging (T2 WI) and of overt measurable EPE. Readers also recorded the length of capsular contact of each lobe's dominant lesion for T2 WI and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. Based on prostatectomy specimens, EPE was recorded for each lobe and classified as focal (single focus ≤0.5 mm in depth) vs. established. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, logistic regression, and kappa coefficients were used to assess interpretive approaches on a side-specific basis. RESULTS: The optimal thresholds were 6 mm and 7 mm of contact using T2 WI and ADC for any EPE, and 10 mm and 7 mm using T2 WI and ADC for nonfocal EPE (AUCs 81.0-82.5%). Capsular contact had higher sensitivity, yet lower specificity, than subjective interpretations for any EPE and for nonfocal EPE (all P ≤ 0.018, aside from any EPE for R2 using ADC). Length of contact exhibited more substantial gains in sensitivity (9-20% for any EPE; 34-41% for nonfocal EPE) than losses in specificity (6-13% for any EPE; 17-27% for nonfocal EPE) compared with subjective interpretations. Interreader agreement: 0.70 for assessments based on length of contact; 0.49-0.59 for subjective assessments. CONCLUSION: Length of capsular contact of dominant lesions can improve interreader agreement and sensitivity for EPE compared with subjective features, with relatively mild specificity loss.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the length of capsular contact of dominant lesions on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) and to determine a threshold value to apply in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing 3T prostate MRI before prostatectomy were included. Two independent readers (R1, R2) recorded for each lobe the presence or absence of capsular irregularity on T2 -weighted imaging (T2 WI) and of overt measurable EPE. Readers also recorded the length of capsular contact of each lobe's dominant lesion for T2 WI and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. Based on prostatectomy specimens, EPE was recorded for each lobe and classified as focal (single focus ≤0.5 mm in depth) vs. established. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, logistic regression, and kappa coefficients were used to assess interpretive approaches on a side-specific basis. RESULTS: The optimal thresholds were 6 mm and 7 mm of contact using T2 WI and ADC for any EPE, and 10 mm and 7 mm using T2 WI and ADC for nonfocal EPE (AUCs 81.0-82.5%). Capsular contact had higher sensitivity, yet lower specificity, than subjective interpretations for any EPE and for nonfocal EPE (all P ≤ 0.018, aside from any EPE for R2 using ADC). Length of contact exhibited more substantial gains in sensitivity (9-20% for any EPE; 34-41% for nonfocal EPE) than losses in specificity (6-13% for any EPE; 17-27% for nonfocal EPE) compared with subjective interpretations. Interreader agreement: 0.70 for assessments based on length of contact; 0.49-0.59 for subjective assessments. CONCLUSION: Length of capsular contact of dominant lesions can improve interreader agreement and sensitivity for EPE compared with subjective features, with relatively mild specificity loss.
Authors: Michael Kongnyuy; Daniel M Halpern; Corinne C Liu; Kaitlin E Kosinski; David J Habibian; Anthony T Corcoran; Aaron E Katz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Justin M Ream; Ankur M Doshi; Diane Dunst; Nainesh Parikh; Max X Kong; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 4.813
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: 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