Liam Toner1, Nathan Papa2, Marlon Perera2, Nikolas Katelaris2, Mahesha Weerakoon2, Kwang Chin3, Laurence Harewood4, Damien M Bolton2,5, Nathan Lawrentschuk2,5,6. 1. Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. liammtoner@gmail.com. 2. Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Radiology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Urology, Renal and Vascular Clinical Unit, Freemasons Campus, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Olivia Newton-John for Cancer Research Institute, Heidelberg Branch, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic and staging ability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens after dissemination of this technology to several centres. mpMRI is an evolving technique aiming to improve upon the diagnostic sensitivity of prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Differences in interpretation, expertise and application of mpMRI are responsible for the range of reported results. METHODS: This retrospective clinical study was conducted with consecutive patients through an electronic database of tertiary hospitals and adjacent private urology practices in Australia. Patients having undergone RP were assessed for the presence of a pre-operative mpMRI performed between 2013 and 2015 which was evaluated against the reference standard of the RP whole-mount specimen. MRI reports were evaluated using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). RESULTS: In our cohort of 152 patients, the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 4) for prostate cancer (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) detection were 83 and 47%, respectively. For the identification of extraprostatic disease, the sensitivity and specificity were 29 and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results represent a 'real-world' approach to mpMRI and appear comparable to other single-centre studies. MRI staging information should be interpreted in context with other risk factors for extraprostatic disease. mpMRI has a useful role as an adjunct for prostate cancer diagnosis and directing management towards improving patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic and staging ability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens after dissemination of this technology to several centres. mpMRI is an evolving technique aiming to improve upon the diagnostic sensitivity of prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Differences in interpretation, expertise and application of mpMRI are responsible for the range of reported results. METHODS: This retrospective clinical study was conducted with consecutive patients through an electronic database of tertiary hospitals and adjacent private urology practices in Australia. Patients having undergone RP were assessed for the presence of a pre-operative mpMRI performed between 2013 and 2015 which was evaluated against the reference standard of the RP whole-mount specimen. MRI reports were evaluated using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). RESULTS: In our cohort of 152 patients, the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 4) for prostate cancer (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) detection were 83 and 47%, respectively. For the identification of extraprostatic disease, the sensitivity and specificity were 29 and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results represent a 'real-world' approach to mpMRI and appear comparable to other single-centre studies. MRI staging information should be interpreted in context with other risk factors for extraprostatic disease. mpMRI has a useful role as an adjunct for prostate cancer diagnosis and directing management towards improving patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Rajan T Gupta; Kamil F Faridi; Abhay A Singh; Niccolò M Passoni; Kirema Garcia-Reyes; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jeremy P Grummet; Mahesha Weerakoon; Sean Huang; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Mark Frydenberg; Daniel A Moon; Mary O'Reilly; Declan Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Daniel Junker; Michael Quentin; Udo Nagele; Michael Edlinger; Jonathan Richenberg; Georg Schaefer; Michael Ladurner; Werner Jaschke; Wolfgang Horninger; Friedrich Aigner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jeffrey D Blume; Fergus V Coakley; Thomas M Wheeler; Jean B Cormack; Christopher K Sotto; Haesun Cho; Akira Kawashima; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Katarzyna J Macura; Mark Rosen; Scott R Gerst; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Arnoud W Postema; Maudy C W Gayet; Ruud J G van Sloun; Rogier R Wildeboer; Christophe K Mannaerts; C Dilara Savci-Heijink; Stefan G Schalk; Amir Kajtazovic; Henk van der Poel; Peter F A Mulders; Harrie P Beerlage; Massimo Mischi; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marlon Perera; Lewis Smith; Ian Thompson; Geoff Breemer; Nathan Papa; Manish I Patel; Peter Swindle; Elliot Smith Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2021-12-14
Authors: Cristian Udovicich; Marlon Perera; Michael S Hofman; Shankar Siva; Andres Del Rio; Declan G Murphy; Nathan Lawrentschuk Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2017-02-24