Jennifer Salerno1, Antonio Finelli2, Chris Morash3, Scott C Morgan3, Nicholas Power4, Nichola Schieda5, Masoom A Haider6. 1. McMaster University, Department of Oncology and Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Western University, London, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The utility of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the local staging of prostate cancer is controversial. Due to the success of multiparametric MRI in cancer localization, there is renewed interested in MRI (± functional sequences) for local staging. Guidance on pre-treatment local staging of prostate cancer by MRI was developed using systematic review methodology and expert consultation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched to identify studies comparing: (1) MRI staging vs. radical prostatectomy staging on diagnostic accuracy outcomes; and (2) MRI staging vs. routine clinical staging on clinical and patient outcomes. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized by outcome and sensitivity/specificity analysis by tumour location was performed. Evidence quality of included studies was assessed and considered in recommendation formulation. RESULTS: The literature search identified 2510 citations; 62 studies were included. Analysis of MRI ≥1.5 T plus endorectal coil (ER) (± functional sequences) in the detection of extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion showed modest sensitivities (≥50%) and excellent specificities (>85%) among patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy. MRI upstaging was shown in 20/21 studies, with large variation in correctness (11-85%). Scarcity of clinical and patient outcomes among studies limited synthesis and evaluation. Quality assessment found non-trivial biases. CONCLUSIONS: Modest imaging performance was shown for MRI (1.5 T + ER and 3 T ± ER) ± functional sequences in regards to sensitivity. Limitations in study design, reporting of clinical and patient outcomes, and the heterogeneous use of MRI tempered the strength of the recommendations.
INTRODUCTION: The utility of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the local staging of prostate cancer is controversial. Due to the success of multiparametric MRI in cancer localization, there is renewed interested in MRI (± functional sequences) for local staging. Guidance on pre-treatment local staging of prostate cancer by MRI was developed using systematic review methodology and expert consultation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched to identify studies comparing: (1) MRI staging vs. radical prostatectomy staging on diagnostic accuracy outcomes; and (2) MRI staging vs. routine clinical staging on clinical and patient outcomes. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized by outcome and sensitivity/specificity analysis by tumour location was performed. Evidence quality of included studies was assessed and considered in recommendation formulation. RESULTS: The literature search identified 2510 citations; 62 studies were included. Analysis of MRI ≥1.5 T plus endorectal coil (ER) (± functional sequences) in the detection of extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion showed modest sensitivities (≥50%) and excellent specificities (>85%) among patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy. MRI upstaging was shown in 20/21 studies, with large variation in correctness (11-85%). Scarcity of clinical and patient outcomes among studies limited synthesis and evaluation. Quality assessment found non-trivial biases. CONCLUSIONS: Modest imaging performance was shown for MRI (1.5 T + ER and 3 T ± ER) ± functional sequences in regards to sensitivity. Limitations in study design, reporting of clinical and patient outcomes, and the heterogeneous use of MRI tempered the strength of the recommendations.
Authors: Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Andrew J Evans; Brett Delahunt; Jonathan I Epstein; David F Griffiths; Theo H van der Kwast; Rodolfo Montironi; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley; Lars L Egevad; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: M Roethke; S Kaufmann; M Kniess; D Ketelsen; C D Claussen; H P Schlemmer; A Stenzl; D Schilling Journal: Urol Int Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Matthias C Roethke; Matthias P Lichy; Michaela Kniess; Matthias K Werner; Claus D Claussen; Arnulf Stenzl; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; David Schilling Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Kenneth G Nepple; Henry M Rosevear; Alan H Stolpen; James A Brown; Richard D Williams Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: John V Hegde; Ming-Hui Chen; Robert V Mulkern; Fiona M Fennessy; Anthony V D'Amico; Clare M C Tempany Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mario Rivera-Izquierdo; Virginia Martínez-Ruiz; José Juan Jiménez-Moleón Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390