Heath Liddell1, Rajeev Jyoti2, Hodo Z Haxhimolla3. 1. Department of Urology, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia. 2. Universal Medical Imaging, Calvary Hospital, Bruce, Australia. 3. Department of Urology, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia; The Australian National University, Garran, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prostate image reporting and data system (PIRADS) 3 lesions as assessed by a 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represent clinically significant prostate cancer. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on a series of consecutive patients who underwent MRI guided biopsy of the prostate for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer between January 2013 and March 2014. Demographic, clinical, MRI and biopsy data were reviewed and compared. The same 3T MRI without the use of an endo-rectal coil was employed to assess each patient, obtaining high resolution T2 weighted images, diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhancement. The MRI data was sent to Dynacad software for analysis. A single experienced radiologist reported all the studies from this series using a modified PIRADS scoring system. Subsequently, all the lesions marked PIRADS 3 or above were targeted with 18G core biopsy using DynaTrim in-gantry MRI guidance system. Needle position targeting the lesion was recorded prior to each biopsy. All core biopsy samples were sent to one of two pathology laboratories where they were processed and reported as per the International Society of Urological Pathology protocols. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients comprising a total of 215 lesions were reviewed. Amongst this cohort, 92 PIRADS 3 lesions were identified and biopsied. The mean age of patients in this cohort was 62.6 years. Median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 6.5 ng/ml and median prostate size was 78.4 ml. Eightysix (93.5%) of biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions were benign and 6 (6.5%) lesions were found to be malignant. Of these 6 malignant lesions, 4 (66%) were Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) and 2 (33%) were Gleason score 7 (3 + 4). Of the 86 non-malignant lesions, 1 (1.2%) represented high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia and 2 (2.4%) represented atypical small acinar proliferation. PIRADS 3 lesions within the peripheral zone were more likely to be associated with malignant disease compared with lesions identified within the transition zone (10.8 vs. 3.8%). Those with malignant disease had a higher median PSA (8.1 vs. 6.4 ng/ml) and higher median PSA density (0.12 vs. 0.08) than those without malignant disease. Those with benign pathology had a higher prevalence of inflammation (31.4 vs. 16.7%). As per Epstein's criteria, 4 (4.3%) of the biopsied lesions represented clinically significant disease. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated in our series, that prostate lesions characterized on a 3T multiparametric MRI examination of the prostate as PIRADS 3, according to the current prevalent scoring systems, are associated with a low likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prostate image reporting and data system (PIRADS) 3 lesions as assessed by a 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represent clinically significant prostate cancer. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed on a series of consecutive patients who underwent MRI guided biopsy of the prostate for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer between January 2013 and March 2014. Demographic, clinical, MRI and biopsy data were reviewed and compared. The same 3T MRI without the use of an endo-rectal coil was employed to assess each patient, obtaining high resolution T2 weighted images, diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhancement. The MRI data was sent to Dynacad software for analysis. A single experienced radiologist reported all the studies from this series using a modified PIRADS scoring system. Subsequently, all the lesions marked PIRADS 3 or above were targeted with 18G core biopsy using DynaTrim in-gantry MRI guidance system. Needle position targeting the lesion was recorded prior to each biopsy. All core biopsy samples were sent to one of two pathology laboratories where they were processed and reported as per the International Society of Urological Pathology protocols. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients comprising a total of 215 lesions were reviewed. Amongst this cohort, 92 PIRADS 3 lesions were identified and biopsied. The mean age of patients in this cohort was 62.6 years. Median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 6.5 ng/ml and median prostate size was 78.4 ml. Eightysix (93.5%) of biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions were benign and 6 (6.5%) lesions were found to be malignant. Of these 6 malignant lesions, 4 (66%) were Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) and 2 (33%) were Gleason score 7 (3 + 4). Of the 86 non-malignant lesions, 1 (1.2%) represented high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia and 2 (2.4%) represented atypical small acinar proliferation. PIRADS 3 lesions within the peripheral zone were more likely to be associated with malignant disease compared with lesions identified within the transition zone (10.8 vs. 3.8%). Those with malignant disease had a higher median PSA (8.1 vs. 6.4 ng/ml) and higher median PSA density (0.12 vs. 0.08) than those without malignant disease. Those with benign pathology had a higher prevalence of inflammation (31.4 vs. 16.7%). As per Epstein's criteria, 4 (4.3%) of the biopsied lesions represented clinically significant disease. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated in our series, that prostate lesions characterized on a 3T multiparametric MRI examination of the prostate as PIRADS 3, according to the current prevalent scoring systems, are associated with a low likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Authors: Guillaume Ploussard; Jonathan I Epstein; Rodolfo Montironi; Peter R Carroll; Manfred Wirth; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Anders S Bjartell; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen J Freedland; Andreas Erbersdobler; Theodorus H van der Kwast Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Philip Rieker; Wilfried Roth; Michael Fenchel; Markus Hohenfellner; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Junker; Georg Schäfer; Michael Edlinger; Christian Kremser; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Werner Jaschke; Friedrich Aigner Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Harbir S Sidhu; Nikolaos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Lucy Am Simmons; Alex Freeman; Alexander Ps Kirkham; Hashim U Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mark W Ball; Ashley E Ross; Kamyar Ghabili; Chunwoo Kim; Changhan Jun; Doru Petrisor; Li Pan; Jonathan I Epstein; Katarzyna J Macura; Dan S Stoianovici; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Urology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Maria Cristina Aisa; Pietro Scialpi; Aldo Di Blasi; Giovanni Saredi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Stefano Signore; Riccardo Grisanti; Michele Scialpi Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Fabian Steinkohl; Leonhard Gruber; Jasmin Bektic; Udo Nagele; Friedrich Aigner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Michael Rieger; Daniel Junker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.959