Kirema Garcia-Reyes1, Hao G Nguyen2, Ronald J Zagoria1, Katsuto Shinohara2, Peter R Carroll2, Spencer C Behr1, Antonio C Westphalen3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Urology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: antonio.westphalen@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of lesion visibility with transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, institutional review board approved, retrospective study was performed in 178 men who were 64.7 years old with prostate specific antigen 8.9 ng/ml. They underwent transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy from January 2013 to September 2016. Visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging were assigned a PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 score of 3 or greater. Transrectal ultrasound was positive when a hypoechoic lesion was identified. We used a 3-level, mixed effects logistic regression model to determine how transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging concordance predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of the 2 methods was estimated using ROC curves. RESULTS: A total of 1,331 sextants were targeted by transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion or systematic biopsies, of which 1,037 were negative, 183 were Gleason score 3 + 3 and 111 were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging alone at 20.5% and 19.7% of these locations, respectively. Men with positive imaging had higher odds of clinically significant prostate cancer than men without visible lesions regardless of modality (transrectal ultrasound OR 14.75, 95% CI 5.22-41.69, magnetic resonance imaging OR 12.27, 95% CI 6.39-23.58 and the 2 modalities OR 28.68, 95% CI 14.45-56.89, all p <0.001). The ROC AUC to detect clinically significant prostate cancer using the 2 methods (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) was statistically greater than that of transrectal ultrasound alone (0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.85, p = 0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging alone (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of transrectal ultrasound were 42.3% and 91.6%, and the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging were 62.2% and 84.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lesion visibility on magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound denotes a similar probability of clinically significant prostate cancer. This probability is greater when each examination is positive.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of lesion visibility with transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, institutional review board approved, retrospective study was performed in 178 men who were 64.7 years old with prostate specific antigen 8.9 ng/ml. They underwent transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy from January 2013 to September 2016. Visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging were assigned a PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 score of 3 or greater. Transrectal ultrasound was positive when a hypoechoic lesion was identified. We used a 3-level, mixed effects logistic regression model to determine how transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging concordance predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of the 2 methods was estimated using ROC curves. RESULTS: A total of 1,331 sextants were targeted by transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion or systematic biopsies, of which 1,037 were negative, 183 were Gleason score 3 + 3 and 111 were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging alone at 20.5% and 19.7% of these locations, respectively. Men with positive imaging had higher odds of clinically significant prostate cancer than men without visible lesions regardless of modality (transrectal ultrasound OR 14.75, 95% CI 5.22-41.69, magnetic resonance imaging OR 12.27, 95% CI 6.39-23.58 and the 2 modalities OR 28.68, 95% CI 14.45-56.89, all p <0.001). The ROC AUC to detect clinically significant prostate cancer using the 2 methods (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) was statistically greater than that of transrectal ultrasound alone (0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.85, p = 0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging alone (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of transrectal ultrasound were 42.3% and 91.6%, and the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging were 62.2% and 84.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lesion visibility on magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound denotes a similar probability of clinically significant prostate cancer. This probability is greater when each examination is positive.
Authors: David E Korenchan; Robert Bok; Renuka Sriram; Kristina Liu; Romelyn Delos Santos; Hecong Qin; Iryna Lobach; Natalie Korn; David M Wilson; John Kurhanewicz; Robert R Flavell Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2019-10-22
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Farhad Fazel; Hao Nguyen; Miguel Cabarrus; Katryana Hanley-Knutson; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Nathan Velarde; Antonio C Westphalen; Hao G Nguyen; John Neuhaus; Katsuto Shinohara; Jeffry P Simko; Peder E Larson; Kirti Magudia Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-01-07
Authors: Armonde A Baghdanian; Yoon-Jin Kim; Arthur H Baghdanian; Hao N Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2019 Sep-Oct