Cedric Lebacle1, Françoise Roudot-Thoraval2, Anissa Moktefi3, Mohamed Bouanane4, Alexandre De La Taille5, Laurent Salomon5. 1. Department of Urology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France. cedric.lebacle@gmail.com. 2. Department of Public Health, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France. 3. Department of Pathology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France. 4. Department of Radiology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France. 5. Department of Urology, CHU Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Debate persists regarding whether MRI should be used routinely for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to assess the role of prostatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other preoperative data in extra-prostatic extension (EPE) evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2013, 1743 patients operated for radical prostatectomy had a preoperative MRI. Age, clinical stage with digital rectal exam (DRE), PSA, prostate weight, biopsy, MRI and pathological findings of the surgical specimen were noticed. A multiparametric score of the variables independently associated with EPE was built with or without MRI on a random sample test population and internally validated. RESULTS: With mean age of 62.9 years and mean PSA of 9.6 ng/ml, the population was distributed as follows: 1424 DRE T1, 254 T2, 32 T3; on biopsy 990 Gleason score = 6 and 717 ≥ 7; on MRI 1322 iT2, 290 iT3A and 131 iT3B; on prostatectomy 15 pT0, 998 pT2, 548 pT3A, 181 pT3B and 1 pT4A. In multivariate analysis, DRE, PSA, Gleason score, prostate weight and MRI were independently associated with EPE and integrated in a score with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.74 [95% CI 0.71-0.77] (0.72 without MRI, p < 0.01) a positive predictive value of 61% and a negative predictive value of 74%, internally validated. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed good accuracy (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of MRI with clinical data for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy permits to exclude accurately EPE in 74% of cases.
BACKGROUND: Debate persists regarding whether MRI should be used routinely for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to assess the role of prostatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other preoperative data in extra-prostatic extension (EPE) evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2013, 1743 patients operated for radical prostatectomy had a preoperative MRI. Age, clinical stage with digital rectal exam (DRE), PSA, prostate weight, biopsy, MRI and pathological findings of the surgical specimen were noticed. A multiparametric score of the variables independently associated with EPE was built with or without MRI on a random sample test population and internally validated. RESULTS: With mean age of 62.9 years and mean PSA of 9.6 ng/ml, the population was distributed as follows: 1424 DRE T1, 254 T2, 32 T3; on biopsy 990 Gleason score = 6 and 717 ≥ 7; on MRI 1322 iT2, 290 iT3A and 131 iT3B; on prostatectomy 15 pT0, 998 pT2, 548 pT3A, 181 pT3B and 1 pT4A. In multivariate analysis, DRE, PSA, Gleason score, prostate weight and MRI were independently associated with EPE and integrated in a score with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.74 [95% CI 0.71-0.77] (0.72 without MRI, p < 0.01) a positive predictive value of 61% and a negative predictive value of 74%, internally validated. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed good accuracy (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of MRI with clinical data for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy permits to exclude accurately EPE in 74% of cases.
Authors: Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Andreas Erbersdobler; Felix K-H Chun; Thorsten Schlom; Paul Perrotte; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-08-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: F Cornud; M Rouanne; F Beuvon; D Eiss; T Flam; M Liberatore; M Zerbib; N B Delongchamps Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; William B Isaacs; Elizabeth A Platz; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B H E Jansen; F H K Oudshoorn; A M Tijans; M J Yska; A P Lont; E R P Collette; J A Nieuwenhuijzen; A N Vis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Clara Humke; Benedikt Hoeh; Felix Preisser; Mike Wenzel; Maria N Welte; Lena Theissen; Boris Bodelle; Jens Koellermann; Thomas Steuber; Alexander Haese; Frederik Roos; Luis Alex Kluth; Andreas Becker; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Alessandrino; Alexander D J Baur; Lars Boesen; Felipe Boschini Franco; David Bonekamp; Riccardo Campa; Hannes Cash; Violeta Catalá; Sebastien Crouzet; Sounil Dinnoo; James Eastham; Fiona M Fennessy; Kamyar Ghabili; Markus Hohenfellner; Angelique W Levi; Xinge Ji; Vibeke Løgager; Daniel J Margolis; Paul C Moldovan; Valeria Panebianco; Tobias Penzkofer; Philippe Puech; Jan Philipp Radtke; Olivier Rouvière; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Preston C Sprenkle; Clare M Tempany; Joan C Vilanova; Jeffrey Weinreb; Hedvig Hricak; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 6.639