Nelly Tan1, Luyao Shen2, Pooria Khoshnoodi2, Héctor E Alcalá3, Weixia Yu4, William Hsu5, Robert E Reiter6, David Y Lu7, Steven S Raman5. 1. School of Medicine University of California-Riverside, Riverside, California; Department of Radiology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California. Electronic address: nelly.tan@ucr.edu. 2. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Family, Population and Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York. 4. Computing Technology Research Laboratory, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Radiology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California. 6. Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Pathology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to identify the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging variables predictive of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent multiparametric 3 Tesla prostate magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an institutional review board approved, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, single arm observational study of 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to robotic assisted radical prostatectomy from December 2009 to March 2016. Clinical, magnetic resonance imaging and pathological information, and clinical outcomes were compiled. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/cc or greater. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Biochemical recurrence had developed in 62 of the 255 men (24.3%) included in the study at a median followup of 23.5 months. Compared to the subcohort without biochemical recurrence the subcohort with biochemical recurrence had a greater proportion of patients with a high grade biopsy Gleason score, higher preoperative prostate specific antigen (7.4 vs 5.6 ng/ml), intermediate and high D'Amico classifications, larger tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (0.66 vs 0.30 ml), higher PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) version 2 category lesions, a greater proportion of intermediate and high grade radical prostatectomy Gleason score lesions, higher pathological T3 stage (all p <0.01) and a higher positive surgical margin rate (19.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.016). On multivariable analysis only tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (adjusted OR 1.57, p = 0.016), pathological T stage (adjusted OR 2.26, p = 0.02), positive surgical margin (adjusted OR 5.0, p = 0.004) and radical prostatectomy Gleason score (adjusted OR 2.29, p = 0.004) predicted biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging and pathological variables, including Gleason score, staging and positive surgical margins, significantly predicted biochemical recurrence. This suggests an important new imaging biomarker.
PURPOSE: We sought to identify the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging variables predictive of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent multiparametric 3 Tesla prostate magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an institutional review board approved, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, single arm observational study of 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to robotic assisted radical prostatectomy from December 2009 to March 2016. Clinical, magnetic resonance imaging and pathological information, and clinical outcomes were compiled. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/cc or greater. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Biochemical recurrence had developed in 62 of the 255 men (24.3%) included in the study at a median followup of 23.5 months. Compared to the subcohort without biochemical recurrence the subcohort with biochemical recurrence had a greater proportion of patients with a high grade biopsy Gleason score, higher preoperative prostate specific antigen (7.4 vs 5.6 ng/ml), intermediate and high D'Amico classifications, larger tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (0.66 vs 0.30 ml), higher PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) version 2 category lesions, a greater proportion of intermediate and high grade radical prostatectomy Gleason score lesions, higher pathological T3 stage (all p <0.01) and a higher positive surgical margin rate (19.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.016). On multivariable analysis only tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (adjusted OR 1.57, p = 0.016), pathological T stage (adjusted OR 2.26, p = 0.02), positive surgical margin (adjusted OR 5.0, p = 0.004) and radical prostatectomy Gleason score (adjusted OR 2.29, p = 0.004) predicted biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging and pathological variables, including Gleason score, staging and positive surgical margins, significantly predicted biochemical recurrence. This suggests an important new imaging biomarker.
Authors: H A Vargas; A M Hötker; D A Goldman; C S Moskowitz; T Gondo; K Matsumoto; B Ehdaie; S Woo; S W Fine; V E Reuter; E Sala; H Hricak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nelly Tan; Wei-Chan Lin; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Nazanin H Asvadi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Daniel J A Margolis; David S K Lu; Holden Wu; Kyung Hyun Sung; David Y Lu; Jaioti Huang; Steven S Raman Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jochen Walz; Felix K-H Chun; Eric A Klein; Alwyn Reuther; Fred Saad; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael H Fuchsjäger; Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; Karim Touijer; John F Donohue; James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: James E Thompson; Daniel Moses; Ron Shnier; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; Lee Ponsky; Marley Pulbrook; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Andrew Hayen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Justin M Ream; Paul Nolan; Henry Rusinek; Fang-Ming Deng; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole E Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; James A Eastham Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; William Gesztes; Denise Young; Sherif Mehralivand; Yolanda McKinney; Thomas Sanford; Jonathan Sackett; Jennifer Cullen; Inger L Rosner; Shiv Srivastava; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Albert Dobi; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Marcin Miszczyk; Justyna Rembak-Szynkiewicz; Łukasz Magrowski; Konrad Stawiski; Agnieszka Namysł-Kaletka; Aleksandra Napieralska; Małgorzata Kraszkiewicz; Grzegorz Woźniak; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Grzegorz Głowacki; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Paweł Rajwa; Wojciech Majewski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 6.639