John K Weaver1, Eric H Kim1, Joel M Vetter1, Anup Shetty2, Robert L Grubb1, Seth A Strope3, Gerald L Andriole4. 1. Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 3. Urologic Oncology, Baptist MD Anderson Cancer Center, Jacksonville, FL. 4. Division of Urology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: andrioleg@wustl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental value of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when used in combination with the currently available preoperative risk stratification tool, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) preradical prostatectomy nomogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database of prostate MRI performed before radical prostatectomy between December 2014 and March 2016 (n = 236). We generated a logistic regression model based on observed final pathology results and the MSKCC nomogram predictions for organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement (LNI) ("MSKCC only"). We then generated a combined regression model incorporating both the MSKCC nomogram prediction with the degree of prostate MRI suspicion ("MSKCC + MRI"). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and the area under the curves (AUCs) were compared. RESULTS: When independently examining the MSKCC nomogram predicted risk and the degree of prostate MRI suspicion, MRI was a predictor for ECE (odds ratio 2.8, P <.01) and LNI (odds ratio 5.6, P = .01). When examining the "MSKCC + MRI" and "MSKCC only" models, the incremental benefit in risk discrimination from the combined model ("MSKCC + MRI") was not significant for organ-confined disease, ECE, seminal vesicle invasion, or LNI (ΔAUC +0.03, P = .10; ΔAUC +0.03, P = .08; ΔAUC 0.63, P = .63; ΔAUC +0.04, P = .42; respectively). CONCLUSION: A combined model with prostate MRI and the MSKCC nomogram provides no additional risk discrimination over the MSKCC nomogram-based model alone. Evaluation of prostate MRI as a predictive tool should be performed in combination with, not independent of, these clinical risk stratification models.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental value of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when used in combination with the currently available preoperative risk stratification tool, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) preradical prostatectomy nomogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database of prostate MRI performed before radical prostatectomy between December 2014 and March 2016 (n = 236). We generated a logistic regression model based on observed final pathology results and the MSKCC nomogram predictions for organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement (LNI) ("MSKCC only"). We then generated a combined regression model incorporating both the MSKCC nomogram prediction with the degree of prostate MRI suspicion ("MSKCC + MRI"). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and the area under the curves (AUCs) were compared. RESULTS: When independently examining the MSKCC nomogram predicted risk and the degree of prostate MRI suspicion, MRI was a predictor for ECE (odds ratio 2.8, P <.01) and LNI (odds ratio 5.6, P = .01). When examining the "MSKCC + MRI" and "MSKCC only" models, the incremental benefit in risk discrimination from the combined model ("MSKCC + MRI") was not significant for organ-confined disease, ECE, seminal vesicle invasion, or LNI (ΔAUC +0.03, P = .10; ΔAUC +0.03, P = .08; ΔAUC 0.63, P = .63; ΔAUC +0.04, P = .42; respectively). CONCLUSION: A combined model with prostate MRI and the MSKCC nomogram provides no additional risk discrimination over the MSKCC nomogram-based model alone. Evaluation of prostate MRI as a predictive tool should be performed in combination with, not independent of, these clinical risk stratification models.
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dennie Meijer; Pim J van Leeuwen; Maarten L Donswijk; Thierry N Boellaard; Ivo G Schoots; Henk G van der Poel; Harry N Hendrikse; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; André N Vis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 5.969
Authors: Sarah Alessi; Paola Pricolo; Paul Summers; Marco Femia; Elena Tagliabue; Giuseppe Renne; Roberto Bianchi; Gennaro Musi; Ottavio De Cobelli; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Massimo Bellomi; Giuseppe Petralia Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Piotr Zapała; Mieszko Kozikowski; Bartosz Dybowski; Łukasz Zapała; Jakub Dobruch; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-09-18
Authors: Rocco S Flammia; Benedikt Hoeh; Gabriele Sorce; Francesco Chierigo; Lukas Hohenhorst; Zhen Tian; Jordan A Goyal; Costantino Leonardo; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Carlo Terrone; Fred Saad; Shahrokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Felix K H Chun; Michele Gallucci; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 4.012
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
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Soleen Ghafoor; Anton S Becker; Sangwon Han; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Irene A Burger; Heiko Schöder; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-09-09