Literature DB >> 29279147

Seminal vesicle invasion on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging: Correlation with histopathology.

Nikolaos Grivas1, Karel Hinnen2, Jeroen de Jong3, Wilma Heemsbergen4, Luc Moonen4, Thelma Witteveen4, Henk van der Poel5, Stijn Heijmink6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The pre-treatment risk of seminal vesicle (SV) invasion (SVI) from prostate cancer is currently based on nomograms which include clinical stage (cT), Gleason score (GS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The aim of our study was to evaluate the staging accuracy of 3T (3T) multi-parametric (mp) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) by comparing the imaging report of SVI with the tissue histopathology. The additional value in the existing prediction models and the role of radiologists' experience were also examined.
METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed clinico-pathological data from 527 patients who underwent a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) between January 2012 and March 2015. Preoperative prostate imaging with an endorectal 3T-mp-MRI was performed in all patients. Sequences consisted of an axial pre-contrast T1 sequence, three orthogonally-oriented T2 sequences, axial diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. We considered SVI in case of low-signal intensity in the SV on T2-weighted sequences or apparent mass while diffusion-weighted and DCE sequences were used to confirm findings on T2. Whole-mount section pathology was performed in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI (index test) for the prediction of histological SVI (reference standard) were calculated. We developed logistic multivariable regression models including: clinical variables (PSA, cT, percentage of involved cores/total cores, primary GS 4-5) and Partin table estimates. MRI results (negative/positive exam) were then added in the models and the multivariate modeling was reassessed. In order to assess the extent of SVI and the reason for mismatch with pathology an MRI-review from an expert genitourinary radiologist was performed in a subgroup of 379 patients.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (10%) were found to have SVI on RARP-histopathology. In the overall cohort sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for SVI detection on MRI were 75.9%, 94.7%, 62% and 97% respectively. Based on our sub-analysis, the radiologist's expertise improved the accuracy demonstrating a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 85.4%, 95.6%, 70.0% and 98.2%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis PSA (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, p=0.008), primary GS 4 or 5 (OR 3.671, p=0.007) and Partin estimates (OR 1.07, p=0.023) were significant predictors of SVI. When MRI results were added to the analysis, a highly significant prediction of SVI was observed (OR 45.9, p<0.0001). Comparing Partin, MRI and Partin with MRI predictive models, the areas under the curve were 0.837, 0.884 and 0.929, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI had high diagnostic accuracy for SVI on histopathology. It provided added diagnostic value to clinical/Partin based SVI-prediction models alone. A key factor is radiologist's experience, though no inter-observer variability could be examined due to the availability of a single expert radiologist.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Tumor staging

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29279147     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  10 in total

1.  Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer.

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

Review 2.  The role of MRI for detection and staging of radio- and focal therapy-recurrent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Henk van der Poel; Nikos Grivas; Pim van Leeuwen; Stijn Heijmink; Ivo Schoots
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Integration of magnetic resonance imaging into prostate cancer nomograms.

Authors:  Garrett J Brinkley; Andrew M Fang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-05-13

4.  Multiparametric MRI - local staging of prostate cancer and beyond.

Authors:  Iztok Caglic; Viljem Kovac; Tristan Barrett
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 2.991

5.  Incremental Value of Ga-68 Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-11 Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scan for Preoperative Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  U N Pallavi; Sanjay Gogoi; Parul Thakral; Vindhya Malasani; Kanchan Sharma; Divya Manda; Subha Shankar Das; Vineet Pant; Ishita Sen
Journal:  Indian J Nucl Med       Date:  2020-03-12

6.  Predictive model containing PI-RADS v2 score for postoperative seminal vesicle invasion among prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Hao Wang; Mingjian Ruan; He Wang; Xueying Li; Xuege Hu; Hua Liu; Binyi Zhou; Gang Song
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-02

Review 7.  Current Opinion on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Jamie Michael; Kevin Neuzil; Ersan Altun; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with seminal vesicle involvement (T3b): A multicentric retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Flora Goupy; Stéphane Supiot; David Pasquier; Igor Latorzeff; Ulrike Schick; Erik Monpetit; Geoffrey Martinage; Chloé Hervé; Bernadette Le Proust; Joel Castelli; Renaud de Crevoisier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Imaging for Metastasis in Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Anthony Turpin; Edwina Girard; Clio Baillet; David Pasquier; Jonathan Olivier; Arnauld Villers; Philippe Puech; Nicolas Penel
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Prediction of Pathologic Findings with MRI-Based Clinical Staging Using the Bayesian Network Modeling in Prostate Cancer: A Radiation Oncologist Perspective.

Authors:  Chan Woo Wee; Bum-Sup Jang; Jin Ho Kim; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Kwak; Hyun Hoe Kim; Ja Hyeon Ku; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Sang Youn Kim
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.679

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.