Iqbal Sahibzada1, Deepak Batura2, Giles Hellawell1. 1. Department of Urology, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, London, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK. 2. Department of Urology, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, London, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, UK. deepakbatura@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-bx) for the diagnosis and monitoring of small-volume prostate cancer (PCa) in patients on active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In a retrospective cross-sectional validation study, 100 patients on AS for PCa underwent a systematic 12-core TRUS-bx (the gold standard) as well as mpMRI, on either a 1.5 or 3 Tesla scanner (32 and 68 patients, respectively). Three pathologists reported biopsy histology separately. A single, experienced radiologist scored mpMRI scans using the PI-RADS system. We compared left- and right-sided PI-RADS scores of the peripheral zone with TRUS-bx results of the relevant prostate lobe. We then estimated the specificity and sensitivity of mpMRI in diagnosing low-grade low-risk PCa in our AS cohort. RESULTS: The sensitivity of mpMRI was 37% (95% CI 28-47%) and specificity was 85% (CI 76-92%) for cancer. The negative predictive value was 51% (CI 44-60%), and the positive predictive value was 76% (CI 62-87%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2.5 and 0.7, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because of its low specificity and low negative predictive value, mpMRI is not suitable for diagnosing low-grade small-volume PCa. However, because of a specificity of 85% and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.7, mpMRI may be useful for follow-up of previously TRUS-bx diagnosed patients who are on AS.
PURPOSE: To compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-bx) for the diagnosis and monitoring of small-volume prostate cancer (PCa) in patients on active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In a retrospective cross-sectional validation study, 100 patients on AS for PCa underwent a systematic 12-core TRUS-bx (the gold standard) as well as mpMRI, on either a 1.5 or 3 Tesla scanner (32 and 68 patients, respectively). Three pathologists reported biopsy histology separately. A single, experienced radiologist scored mpMRI scans using the PI-RADS system. We compared left- and right-sided PI-RADS scores of the peripheral zone with TRUS-bx results of the relevant prostate lobe. We then estimated the specificity and sensitivity of mpMRI in diagnosing low-grade low-risk PCa in our AS cohort. RESULTS: The sensitivity of mpMRI was 37% (95% CI 28-47%) and specificity was 85% (CI 76-92%) for cancer. The negative predictive value was 51% (CI 44-60%), and the positive predictive value was 76% (CI 62-87%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2.5 and 0.7, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because of its low specificity and low negative predictive value, mpMRI is not suitable for diagnosing low-grade small-volume PCa. However, because of a specificity of 85% and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.7, mpMRI may be useful for follow-up of previously TRUS-bx diagnosed patients who are on AS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Biopsy; MRI; Prostate neoplasms; Sensitivity and specificity
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; Irene Chen; Aliya Qayyum; Antonio C Westphalen; Peter R Carroll; Hedvig Hricak; Mei-Hsiu Chen; John Kurhanewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: A V D'Amico; A Desjardin; A Chung; M H Chen; D Schultz; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; A Wein; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; K Loughlin; J P Richie Journal: Cancer Date: 1998-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Paul H Chung; Juan M Proano; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna Shih; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Young Jun Choi; Jeong Kon Kim; Namkug Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Eugene K Choi; Kyoung-Sik Cho Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Piotr Zapała; Bartosz Dybowski; Ewa Bres-Niewada; Tomasz Lorenc; Agnieszka Powała; Zbigniew Lewandowski; Marek Gołębiowski; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Julie Y An; Abhinav Sidana; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A Pinto; İsmail Barış Türkbey Journal: Balkan Med J Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 2.021