| Literature DB >> 27769214 |
Edward Johnston1, Hayley Pye2,3, Elisenda Bonet-Carne4, Eleftheria Panagiotaki4, Dominic Patel5, Myria Galazi6, Susan Heavey2,3, Lina Carmona2,3, Alexander Freeman5, Giorgia Trevisan5, Clare Allen7, Alexander Kirkham7, Keith Burling2,3, Nicola Stevens7, David Hawkes4, Mark Emberton8, Caroline Moore8, Hashim U Ahmed8, David Atkinson7, Manuel Rodriguez-Justo5, Tony Ng6, Daniel Alexander4, Hayley Whitaker2,3, Shonit Punwani7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whilst multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has been a significant advance in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, scanning all patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels is considered too costly for widespread National Health Service (NHS) use, as the predictive value of PSA levels for significant disease is poor. Despite the fact that novel blood and urine tests are available which may predict aggressive disease better than PSA, they are not routinely employed due to a lack of clinical validity studies. Furthermore approximately 40 % of mp-MRI studies are reported as indeterminate, which can lead to repeat examinations or unnecessary biopsy with associated patient anxiety, discomfort, risk and additional costs. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27769214 PMCID: PMC5073433 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2856-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Standard, our institutional and proposed new pathways for prostate cancer diagnosis
Inclusion, exclusion and withdrawal criteria
| Patient Inclusion Criteria |
| 1. Men referred to our center for prostate mp-MRI following biopsy elsewhere |
| 2. Biopsy naive men presenting to our institution with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer |
| Patient Exclusion Criteria |
| 1. Men unable to have a MRI scan, or in whom artifact would reduce quality of MRI |
| 2. Men unable to given informed consent |
| 3. Previous treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy, brachytherapy) of prostate cancer |
| 4. On-going hormonal treatment for prostate cancer |
| 5. Previous biopsy within 6 months of scheduled mp-MRI |
| Withdrawal criteria |
| 1. Images inadequate for analysis due to artifact or image acquisition problems even after a repeat scan |
MRI phasing details for standard multiparametric prostate MRI
| Sequence | Coil | TR | TE | FA degrees | WFS(pix) | BW Hz/Px | Fov mm | Slice thickness mm | Gap | TSE factor | Phasing direction | FS | ACQ matrix | TFE shots | TFE shot interval (ms) | Total scan duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2 TSE coronal | Dual | 6128 | 100 | 90 | 2.704 | 160.7 | 180 | 3 | 3 | 16 | R > L | No | 300 x 290 | 05:55.4 | ||
| T2 TSE axial | Dual | 5407 | 100 | 90 | 2.704 | 160.7 | 180 | 3 | 0 | 16 | R > L | No | 300 x 290 | 05:13.6 | ||
| T2 sag REF | Dual | 1579 | 100 | 90 | 1.999 | 217.3 | 240 | 5 | 5 | 20 | A > P | No | 120 x 89 | 00:18.9 | ||
| T1W TSE | Dual | 487 | 8 | 90 | 1.997 | 217.6 | 240 | 3 | 3 | 4 | R > L | No | 184 x 184 | 03:06.8 | ||
| DWI 0 150 500 1000 | Dual | 2753 | 80 | 90 | 40.353 | 10.8 | 220 | 5 | 0 | A > P | SPAIR | 168 x 169 | 05:16.5 | |||
| DWI b2000 | Dual | 2000 | 78 | 90 | 44.108 | 9.9 | 220 | 5 | 0 | A > P | SPIR | 168 x 169 | 03:40.0 | |||
| DCE 2 dyn mod SENSE | Dual | 5.8 | 2.8 | 90 | 1.766 | 246.1 | 180 | 3 | 0 | 38 (TFE) | R > L | SPAIR | 140 x 177 | 49 | 280 | 00:28.9 |
| DCE 20 dyn mod SENSE | Dual | 5.8 | 2.8 | 90 | 1.766 | 246.1 | 180 | 3 | 0 | R > L | SPAIR | 140 x 162 | 45 | 280 | 04:14.1 |
VERDICT MRI diffusion gradient parameters
|
| ∆/δ ms | TE ms | |G| T/m |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3000 | 19.7/38.8 | 80 | 0.0579 |
| 2000 | 13.2/32.3 | 67 | 0.0758 |
| 1500 | 24.7/43.8 | 90 | 0.0311 |
| 500 | 12.2/31.3 | 65 | 0.0415 |
| 90 | 4.7/23.8 | 50 | 0.0506 |
Fig. 2VERDICT parameter maps. Images have been colour scaled. L to R, top to bottom: Original image b = 0 diffusion-weighted image. Prostate + lesion showing original image with superimposed segmented lesion. Prostate segmentation + lesion segmentation. fIC = intracellular volume fraction. R = cell radius. Cellularity map = calculated parametric map which shows the measured number of cells per voxel. fEES = Extracellular, extravascular volume fraction, fVASC = vascular volume fraction. fobj = objective function. fIC, fEES and fVASC are all fractions, which add to 1. Cellularity is number of cells per voxel, with units of cells/μm3. Objective function highlighting the ‘goodness of fit’ for the VERDICT model
Fig. 3Derivation of reference standard flow chart
Imaging parameters vs. histological correlates
| VERDICT parameter | Histological parameter |
|---|---|
| Intracellular volume fraction | Cell coverage fraction per high power field |
| Vascular volume fraction | Vascular coverage fraction per high power field |
| Extravascular extracellular volume fraction | Glandular + stromal coverage fraction per high power field |
| Cell radius | Average cell radius in a high power field |
| Cellularity | Cell count per high power field |
Primary and secondary outcome measures
| Primary outcome |
| Radiological assessment with added VERDICT MRI improves the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI for detection of significant prostate cancer by a minimum of 10 % |
| Secondary outcomes |
| • A group of diagnostic fluidic markers measured on the MesoScale discovery (MSD) platform and/or in DNA and RNA, can predict patients with a negative mp-MRI result (i.e. 1-2/5 Likert score). |
| • The use of patient serum-derived exosomes as ‘liquid biopsies’ for the identification of genomic and molecular aberrations that can be used to better predict patients with aggressive or high volume prostate cancer |
| • Technical validation of VERDICT: |
| ○ VERDICT MRI is qualitatively and quantitatively repeatable |
| • Biological validation of VERDICT: |
| ○ VERDICT cellularity measure correlates with histological cell density |
| ○ VERDICT intracellular volume fraction correlates with segmented fractional histological intracellular component |
| ○ VERDICT vascular volume fraction correlates with segmented fractional histological vascular component |
| ○ VERDICT extracellular extravascular volume fraction correlates with fractional segmented histological glandular component + stromal component |
| • Set-up of imaging/fluidic marker outcome linked database |