Luca F Valle1, Matthew D Greer2, Joanna H Shih3, Tristan Barrett4, Yan Mee Law5, Andrew B Rosenkrantz6, Haytham Shebel7, Akhil Muthigi8, Daniel Su9, Maria J Merino10, Bradford J Wood11, Peter A Pinto8, Andra V Krauze1, Aradhana Kaushal1, Peter L Choyke2, Barış Türkbey2, Deborah E Citrin1. 1. Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA. 3. Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 6. Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU School of Medicine, New York, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura City, Egypt. 8. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA. 9. Orange Country Urology Associates, Laguna Hills, USA. 10. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA. 11. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has utility in detecting post-radiotherapy local recurrence. We conducted a multireader study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for local recurrence after low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy. METHODS: A total of 19 patients with biochemical recurrence after LDR brachytherapy underwent 3T endorectal coil mpMRI with T2-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with pathologic confirmation. Prospective reads by an experienced prostate radiologist were compared with reads from 4 radiologists of varying experience. Readers identified suspicious lesions and rated each MRI detection parameter. MRI-detected lesions were considered true-positive with ipsilateral pathologic confirmation. Inferences for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), kappa, and index of specific agreement were made with the use of bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: Pathologically confirmed recurrence was found in 15 of 19 patients. True positive recurrences identified by mpMRI were frequently located in the transition zone (46.7%) and seminal vesicles (30%). On patient-based analysis, average sensitivity of mpMRI was 88% (standard error [SE], 3.5%). For highly suspicious lesions, specificity of mpMRI was 75% (SE, 16.5%). On lesion-based analysis, the average PPV was 62% (SE, 6.7%) for all lesions and 78.7% (SE, 10.3%) for highly suspicious lesions. The average PPV for lesions invading the seminal vesicles was 88.8% (n=13). The average PPV was 66.6% (SE, 5.8%) for lesions identified with T2-weighted imaging, 64.9% (SE, 7.3%) for DCE, and 70% (SE, 7.3%) for DWI. CONCLUSION: This series provides evidence that mpMRI after LDR brachytherapy is feasible with a high patient-based cancer detection rate. Radiologists of varying experience demonstrated moderate agreement in detecting recurrence.
PURPOSE: Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has utility in detecting post-radiotherapy local recurrence. We conducted a multireader study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of mpMRI for local recurrence after low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy. METHODS: A total of 19 patients with biochemical recurrence after LDR brachytherapy underwent 3T endorectal coil mpMRI with T2-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with pathologic confirmation. Prospective reads by an experienced prostate radiologist were compared with reads from 4 radiologists of varying experience. Readers identified suspicious lesions and rated each MRI detection parameter. MRI-detected lesions were considered true-positive with ipsilateral pathologic confirmation. Inferences for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), kappa, and index of specific agreement were made with the use of bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: Pathologically confirmed recurrence was found in 15 of 19 patients. True positive recurrences identified by mpMRI were frequently located in the transition zone (46.7%) and seminal vesicles (30%). On patient-based analysis, average sensitivity of mpMRI was 88% (standard error [SE], 3.5%). For highly suspicious lesions, specificity of mpMRI was 75% (SE, 16.5%). On lesion-based analysis, the average PPV was 62% (SE, 6.7%) for all lesions and 78.7% (SE, 10.3%) for highly suspicious lesions. The average PPV for lesions invading the seminal vesicles was 88.8% (n=13). The average PPV was 66.6% (SE, 5.8%) for lesions identified with T2-weighted imaging, 64.9% (SE, 7.3%) for DCE, and 70% (SE, 7.3%) for DWI. CONCLUSION: This series provides evidence that mpMRI after LDR brachytherapy is feasible with a high patient-based cancer detection rate. Radiologists of varying experience demonstrated moderate agreement in detecting recurrence.
Authors: Daniel G Petereit; Steven J Frank; Akila N Viswanathan; Beth Erickson; Patricia Eifel; Paul L Nguyen; David E Wazer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; N Ramachandran; N Dikaios; H U Ahmed; M Emberton; A Kirkham; M Arya; S Taylor; S Halligan; S Punwani Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Maaike R Moman; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Arto E Boeken Kruger; Jan J Battermann; Marinus A Moerland; Uulke A van der Heide; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James P Stevenson; Mark Rosen; Weijing Sun; Maryann Gallagher; Daniel G Haller; David Vaughn; Bruce Giantonio; Ross Zimmer; William P Petros; Michael Stratford; David Chaplin; Scott L Young; Mitchell Schnall; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Brian J Davis; Lance A Mynderse; Jeffrey M Slezak; Eric J Bergstralh; Torrence M Wilson; C Richard Choo Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: John M Lacy; William A Wilson; Raevti Bole; Li Chen; Ali S Meigooni; Randall G Rowland; William H St Clair Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2016-03-22
Authors: Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Sarah E Reese; Stephanie A Harmon; Ilhan Lim; Frank Lin; Anita Ton; Yolanda L McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Deborah E Citrin; William Dahut; Ravi Madan; Bradford J Wood; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Richard Chang; Elliot Levy; Peter Pinto; Janet F Eary; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kilian E Salerno; Baris Turkbey; Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Erica E Schott; Alexandra K Brennan; Soumyajit Roy; Uma Shankavaram; Krishnan Patel; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Yolanda McKinney; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 2.441
Authors: Samuel J Galgano; Carli E Calderone; Andrew M McDonald; Jeffrey W Nix; Mollie deShazo; Eddy S Yang; Jonathan E McConathy; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 5.532