Rossano Girometti1, Martina Pancot2, Marco Andrea Signor3, Martina Urbani4, Luca Balestreri4, Chiara Zuiani2. 1. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, P.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15, 33100, Udine, Italy. rgirometti@sirm.org. 2. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, P.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15, 33100, Udine, Italy. 3. Department of Oncological Radiation Therapy, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Santa Maria della Misericordia, Piazzale S. M. della Misericordia, 15, 33100, Udine, Italy. 4. Department of Oncologic Radiation Therapy and Diagnostic Imaging, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Via Franco Gallini, 2, 33081, Aviano, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI), Partin tables (PT) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (MSKCCn) in assessing risk category in prostate cancer (PCa) patients referred to External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this bicentric study, we prospectively enrolled 80 PCa patients who underwent pre-EBRT mpMRI on a 3.0T magnet with a multiparametric protocol including high-resolution, multiplanar T2-weighted sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. National comprehensive cancer network risk categories were assessed using prostate-specific-antigen level, Gleason score and the T-stage as defined by mpMRI or nomograms. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to calculate the agreement between mpMRI and nomograms in assessing the T-stage (organ-confined (OC) vs. non-organ-confined (nOC) disease) and risk category (≤ low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. ≥ high risk). RESULTS: mpMRI showed poor agreement with PT and MSKCCn in assessing nOC versus OC (k = 0.16 for both), translating into an mpMRI-induced reclassification of PT- and MSKCCn-related risk category in 36.3% (k = 0.43) and 41.3% (k = 0.31) of cases, respectively, with most changes occurring towards intermediate risk category. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI showed low agreement with nomograms as a tool to stratify PCa risk, leading to significant risk reclassification. Assuming that mpMRI is a more reliable surrogate standard of reference for pathology, this technique should refine or replace nomograms in risk classification before EBRT.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement between multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI), Partin tables (PT) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (MSKCCn) in assessing risk category in prostate cancer (PCa) patients referred to External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this bicentric study, we prospectively enrolled 80 PCa patients who underwent pre-EBRT mpMRI on a 3.0T magnet with a multiparametric protocol including high-resolution, multiplanar T2-weighted sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. National comprehensive cancer network risk categories were assessed using prostate-specific-antigen level, Gleason score and the T-stage as defined by mpMRI or nomograms. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to calculate the agreement between mpMRI and nomograms in assessing the T-stage (organ-confined (OC) vs. non-organ-confined (nOC) disease) and risk category (≤ low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. ≥ high risk). RESULTS: mpMRI showed poor agreement with PT and MSKCCn in assessing nOC versus OC (k = 0.16 for both), translating into an mpMRI-induced reclassification of PT- and MSKCCn-related risk category in 36.3% (k = 0.43) and 41.3% (k = 0.31) of cases, respectively, with most changes occurring towards intermediate risk category. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI showed low agreement with nomograms as a tool to stratify PCa risk, leading to significant risk reclassification. Assuming that mpMRI is a more reliable surrogate standard of reference for pathology, this technique should refine or replace nomograms in risk classification before EBRT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer T stage; External beam radiation therapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Nomograms; Prostate cancer; Risk assessment
Authors: K Kenneth Chao; Neal S Goldstein; Di Yan; Carlos E Vargas; Michel I Ghilezan; Howard J Korman; Kenneth M Kernen; Jay B Hollander; Jose A Gonzalez; Alvaro A Martinez; Frank A Vicini; Larry L Kestin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Sandra Bednarova; Rose Berman; Anita T Ton; Yolanda McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Craig Hill; George Afari; Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya; Ronnie C Mease; Maria J Merino; Paula M Jacobs; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Rajan T Gupta; Kamil F Faridi; Abhay A Singh; Niccolò M Passoni; Kirema Garcia-Reyes; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: George Rodrigues; Padraig Warde; Tom Pickles; Juanita Crook; Michael Brundage; Luis Souhami; Himu Lukka Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Christopher J Di Blasio; Audrey C Rhee; Daniel Cho; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Cedric Panje; Thierry Panje; Paul Martin Putora; Suk-Kyum Kim; Sarah Haile; Daniel M Aebersold; Ludwig Plasswilm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-02-22 Impact factor: 3.481