Eva M Serrao1, Tristan Barrett2, Karan Wadhwa3, Deepak Parashar4, Julia Frey3, Brendan C Koo5, Anne Y Warren6, Andrew Doble3, Christof Kastner3, Ferdia A Gallagher7. 1. Department of Radiology, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal, and Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge and Cancer Research, Cambridge, UK; 2. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;; Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 3. Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 4. Cancer Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; 5. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 6. Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital. 7. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK;; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We characterized false negative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting by using histology derived from MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal (MTTP) fusion biopsies. METHODS: In total, 148 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. Men underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), reported by a consultant/attending radiologist in line with European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standards. MTTP biopsy of the lesions was performed according to the Ginsburg recommendations. Cases with an MRI-histology mismatch were identified and underwent a second read by an experienced radiologist. A third review was performed with direct histology comparison to determine a true miss from an MRI-occult cancer. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar's test. RESULTS: False negative lesions were identified in 29 MRI examinations (19.6%), with a total of 46 lesions. Most false negative lesions (21/46) were located in the anterior sectors of the prostate. The second read led to a significant decrease of false-negative lesions with 7/29 further studies identified as positive on a patient-by-patient basis (24.1% of studies, p = 0.016) and 11/46 lesions (23.9%; p = 0.001). Of these, 30 lesions following the first read and 23 lesions after the second read were considered significant cancer according to the University College London criteria. However, on direct comparison with histology, most lesions were MRI occult. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that MRI can fail to detect clinically relevant lesions. Improved results were achieved with a second read but despite this, a number of lesions remain MRI-occult. Further advances in imaging are required to reduce false negative results.
INTRODUCTION: We characterized false negative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting by using histology derived from MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal (MTTP) fusion biopsies. METHODS: In total, 148 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. Men underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), reported by a consultant/attending radiologist in line with European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standards. MTTP biopsy of the lesions was performed according to the Ginsburg recommendations. Cases with an MRI-histology mismatch were identified and underwent a second read by an experienced radiologist. A third review was performed with direct histology comparison to determine a true miss from an MRI-occult cancer. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar's test. RESULTS: False negative lesions were identified in 29 MRI examinations (19.6%), with a total of 46 lesions. Most false negative lesions (21/46) were located in the anterior sectors of the prostate. The second read led to a significant decrease of false-negative lesions with 7/29 further studies identified as positive on a patient-by-patient basis (24.1% of studies, p = 0.016) and 11/46 lesions (23.9%; p = 0.001). Of these, 30 lesions following the first read and 23 lesions after the second read were considered significant cancer according to the University College London criteria. However, on direct comparison with histology, most lesions were MRI occult. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that MRI can fail to detect clinically relevant lesions. Improved results were achieved with a second read but despite this, a number of lesions remain MRI-occult. Further advances in imaging are required to reduce false negative results.
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Karan Wadhwa; Richard Tsung Meng Chang; Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Matthias Roethke; Alexander Polson; Giles Rottenberg; Brendan Koo; Edward M Lawrence; Jonas Seidenader; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Richard Axell; Wilfried Roth; Anne Warren; Andrew Doble; Gordon Muir; Rick Popert; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Brandon K Isariyawongse; Leon Sun; Lionel L Bañez; Cary Robertson; Thomas J Polascik; Kelly Maloney; Craig Donatucci; David Albala; Vladimir Mouraviev; John F Madden; Judd W Moul Journal: Urology Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Richard F Jones; Vishal Chandan; Angel M Serio; Andrew J Vickers; Mary Jumbelic; Gregory Threatte; Rus Korets; Hans Lilja; Gustavo de la Roza Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nicolas B Delongchamps; Gustavo de la Roza; Richard Jones; Mary Jumbelic; Gabriel P Haas Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Laibao Sun; Martin J Yaffe; John Trachtenberg; Masoom A Haider Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2016
Authors: V J Gnanapragasam; K Burling; A George; S Stearn; A Warren; T Barrett; B Koo; F A Gallagher; A Doble; C Kastner; R A Parker Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Nienke L Hansen; Brendan C Koo; Ferdia A Gallagher; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Ola Bratt; Christof Kastner; Tristan Barrett Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jinxing Yu; Ann S Fulcher; Sarah Winks; Mary A Turner; William Behl; Anna Lee Ware; Nitai D Mukhopadhyay; Candice Kim; Christopher Jackson; Harnek S Bajaj; Lance J Hampton Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-06-29
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Joanna H Shih; Clayton P Smith; Nathan Lay; Burak Argun; Sandra Bednarova; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Karabekir Ercan; Rossano Girometti; Ercan Karaarslan; Ali Riza Kural; Andrei S Purysko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Victor Martins Tonso; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Ricardo Silvestre E Silva Macarenco; Maria J Merino; Berrak Gumuskaya; Yesim Saglican; Stefano Sioletic; Anne Y Warren; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Mehmet Coskun; Chris Knauss; Yan Mee Law; Ashkan A Malayeri; Daniel J Margolis; Jamie Marko; Derya Yakar; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.959