INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the utility of 3 Tesla (3T) pelvic phased-array (PPA) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to predict extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and its subsequent effect on radical prostatectomy (RP) surgical margin status. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted of RP patients who underwent preoperative 3T PPA mpMRI (without endorectal coil) based on clinical probability of adverse pathological features. Frequencies, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in predicting the status of ECE and SVI were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-eight consecutive patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for 3T PPA mpMRI using T2-weighted sequences with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging to predict ECE was 39%, 56%, 45%, and 50%, respectively, while SVI prediction was 33%, 95%, 50%, and 91%, respectively. Twelve of the 28 cases predicted as being negative for ECE had positive margins, while two of the 20 cases predicted to be positive for ECE had positive margins. Imaging predicted four cases would have SVI, yet two had positive margins, while of the 44 cases predicted as being negative for SVI, four had positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: These findings at our centre suggest that the use of 3T PPA mpMRI using T2-weighted sequences with DWI and DCE in predicting pathological ECE and SVI is of questionable benefit. These mpMRI reports may result in closer dissection of neurovascular bundles and subsequent positive surgical margins. Caution should be exercised when basing intraoperative decisions on mpMRI findings.
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the utility of 3 Tesla (3T) pelvic phased-array (PPA) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to predict extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and its subsequent effect on radical prostatectomy (RP) surgical margin status. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was conducted of RPpatients who underwent preoperative 3T PPA mpMRI (without endorectal coil) based on clinical probability of adverse pathological features. Frequencies, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in predicting the status of ECE and SVI were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-eight consecutive patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for 3T PPA mpMRI using T2-weighted sequences with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging to predict ECE was 39%, 56%, 45%, and 50%, respectively, while SVI prediction was 33%, 95%, 50%, and 91%, respectively. Twelve of the 28 cases predicted as being negative for ECE had positive margins, while two of the 20 cases predicted to be positive for ECE had positive margins. Imaging predicted four cases would have SVI, yet two had positive margins, while of the 44 cases predicted as being negative for SVI, four had positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: These findings at our centre suggest that the use of 3T PPA mpMRI using T2-weighted sequences with DWI and DCE in predicting pathological ECE and SVI is of questionable benefit. These mpMRI reports may result in closer dissection of neurovascular bundles and subsequent positive surgical margins. Caution should be exercised when basing intraoperative decisions on mpMRI findings.
Authors: B Nicolas Bloch; Elizabeth M Genega; Daniel N Costa; Ivan Pedrosa; Martin P Smith; Herbert Y Kressel; Long Ngo; Martin G Sanda; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jonathan S Brajtbord; Hugh J Lavery; Fatima Nabizada-Pace; Prathibha Senaratne; David B Samadi Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Eliney F Faria; Brian F Chapin; Roberto L Muller; Roberto D Machado; Rodolfo B Reis; Surena F Matin Journal: Urology Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: O Solyanik; B Schlenker; C Gratzke; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; J Ricke; D Nörenberg Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 0.639
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