PURPOSE: Bone lesions on prostate MRI often raise concern about metastases. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of bone metastases on staging prostate MRI and evaluate associations between their MRI features and clinical/pathologic characteristics. METHODS: Retrospective, IRB-approved study of 3765 patients undergoing prostate MRI for newly diagnosed PCa between 2000 and 2014. The reference standard to calculate the prevalence of bone metastases was bone biopsy and/or ≥1-year follow-up after MRI. In a subsample of 228 patients, the MRI characteristics of bone lesions were recorded by two radiologists independently. Associations between MRI and clinical/pathologic findings, including National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories, were calculated. RESULTS: 57/3765 patients (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2-2.0%) had bone metastases. No patient with NCCN low-risk PCa (Gleason < 7, PSA < 10 ng/mL, cT1-2a) had bone metastases. In the subsample, ≥1 bone lesion was present on MRI in 74% (95% CI 0.67-0.79) and 72% (95% CI 0.66-0.78) of patients (R1 and R2). Larger lesion diameter (OR 1.33/1.19; p < 0.001 for both readers) and the absence of intralesional fat (OR 0.07/0.11; p = 0.004/0.002 for R1/R2) were significantly associated with bone metastases. CONCLUSION: Bone lesions are common in prostate MRI, but only rarely represent metastases. MRI should be interpreted in the context of clinical features that influence the likelihood of metastatic disease.
PURPOSE: Bone lesions on prostate MRI often raise concern about metastases. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of bone metastases on staging prostate MRI and evaluate associations between their MRI features and clinical/pathologic characteristics. METHODS: Retrospective, IRB-approved study of 3765 patients undergoing prostate MRI for newly diagnosed PCa between 2000 and 2014. The reference standard to calculate the prevalence of bone metastases was bone biopsy and/or ≥1-year follow-up after MRI. In a subsample of 228 patients, the MRI characteristics of bone lesions were recorded by two radiologists independently. Associations between MRI and clinical/pathologic findings, including National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk categories, were calculated. RESULTS: 57/3765 patients (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2-2.0%) had bone metastases. No patient with NCCN low-risk PCa (Gleason < 7, PSA < 10 ng/mL, cT1-2a) had bone metastases. In the subsample, ≥1 bone lesion was present on MRI in 74% (95% CI 0.67-0.79) and 72% (95% CI 0.66-0.78) of patients (R1 and R2). Larger lesion diameter (OR 1.33/1.19; p < 0.001 for both readers) and the absence of intralesional fat (OR 0.07/0.11; p = 0.004/0.002 for R1/R2) were significantly associated with bone metastases. CONCLUSION: Bone lesions are common in prostate MRI, but only rarely represent metastases. MRI should be interpreted in the context of clinical features that influence the likelihood of metastatic disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastases; Detection; Imaging; MRI; Prostate cancer; Staging
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Asim Afaq; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: J E Thompson; P J van Leeuwen; D Moses; R Shnier; P Brenner; W Delprado; M Pulbrook; M Böhm; A M Haynes; A Hayen; P D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: C S Simpfendorfer; H Ilaslan; A M Davies; S L James; N A Obuchowski; M Sundaram Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Liang Wang; Michael Mullerad; Hui-Ni Chen; Steven C Eberhardt; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Urs J Muehlematter; Daniel Eberli; Julian Müller; Alexander Müller; Roger Gablinger; Helmut Kranzbühler; Aurelius Omlin; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236