Joanne Nyarangi-Dix1, Manuel Wiesenfarth2, David Bonekamp3, Bertram Hitthaler1, Viktoria Schütz1, Svenja Dieffenbacher4, Maya Mueller-Wolf3, Wilfried Roth5, Albrecht Stenzinger5, Stefan Duensing1, Matthias Roethke3, Dogu Teber1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer3, Markus Hohenfellner1, Jan Philipp Radtke6. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Institute of Pathology Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: j.radtke@dkfz-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) facilitates the detection of significant prostate cancer. Therefore, addition of mpMRI to clinical parameters might improve the prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of a novel risk model (RM) combining clinical and mpMRI parameters to predict EPE in RP specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We added prebiopsy mpMRI to clinical parameters and developed an RM to predict individual side-specific EPE (EPE-RM). Clinical parameters of 264 consecutive men with mpMRI prior to MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy and subsequent RP between 2012 and 2015 were retrospectively analysed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine significant EPE predictors for RM development. The prediction performance of the novel EPE-RM was compared with clinical T stage (cT), MR-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) classification for EPE, two established nomograms (by Steuber et al and Ohori et al) and a clinical nomogram based on the coefficients of the established nomograms, and was constructed based on the data of the present cohort, using receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). For comparison, models' likelihood ratio (LR) tests and Vuong tests were used. Discrimination and calibration of the EPE-RM were validated based on resampling methods using bootstrapping. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: International society of Urogenital Pathology grade on biopsy, ESUR criteria, prostate-specific antigen, cT, prostate volume, and capsule contact length were included in the EPE-RM. Calibration of the EPE-RM was good (error 0.018). The ROC area under the curve for the EPE-RM was larger (0.87) compared with cT (0.66), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (0.73), Steuber nomogram (0.70), novel clinical nomogram (0.79), and ESUR classification (0.81). Based on LR and Vuong tests, the EPE-RM's model fit was significantly better than that of cT, all clinical models, and ESUR classification alone (p<0.001). Limitations include monocentric design and expert reading of MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This novel EPE-RM, incorporating clinical and MRI parameters, performed better than contemporary clinical RMs and MRI predictors, therefore providing an accurate patient-tailored preoperative risk stratification of side-specific EPE. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer can be predicted accurately using a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters. This novel risk model outperforms magnetic resonance imaging and clinical predictors alone and can be useful when planning nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) facilitates the detection of significant prostate cancer. Therefore, addition of mpMRI to clinical parameters might improve the prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of a novel risk model (RM) combining clinical and mpMRI parameters to predict EPE in RP specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We added prebiopsy mpMRI to clinical parameters and developed an RM to predict individual side-specific EPE (EPE-RM). Clinical parameters of 264 consecutive men with mpMRI prior to MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy and subsequent RP between 2012 and 2015 were retrospectively analysed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine significant EPE predictors for RM development. The prediction performance of the novel EPE-RM was compared with clinical T stage (cT), MR-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) classification for EPE, two established nomograms (by Steuber et al and Ohori et al) and a clinical nomogram based on the coefficients of the established nomograms, and was constructed based on the data of the present cohort, using receiver operating characteristics (ROCs). For comparison, models' likelihood ratio (LR) tests and Vuong tests were used. Discrimination and calibration of the EPE-RM were validated based on resampling methods using bootstrapping. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: International society of Urogenital Pathology grade on biopsy, ESUR criteria, prostate-specific antigen, cT, prostate volume, and capsule contact length were included in the EPE-RM. Calibration of the EPE-RM was good (error 0.018). The ROC area under the curve for the EPE-RM was larger (0.87) compared with cT (0.66), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (0.73), Steuber nomogram (0.70), novel clinical nomogram (0.79), and ESUR classification (0.81). Based on LR and Vuong tests, the EPE-RM's model fit was significantly better than that of cT, all clinical models, and ESUR classification alone (p<0.001). Limitations include monocentric design and expert reading of MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This novel EPE-RM, incorporating clinical and MRI parameters, performed better than contemporary clinical RMs and MRI predictors, therefore providing an accurate patient-tailored preoperative risk stratification of side-specific EPE. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer can be predicted accurately using a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters. This novel risk model outperforms magnetic resonance imaging and clinical predictors alone and can be useful when planning nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Ines Nikolovski; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Evis Sala; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael W Kattan; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher Darr; Nina N Harke; Jan Philipp Radtke; Leubet Yirga; Claudia Kesch; Maarten R Grootendorst; Wolfgang P Fendler; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Christoph Rischpler; Christine Praus; Johannes Haubold; Henning Reis; Thomas Hager; Ken Herrmann; Ina Binse; Boris Hadaschik Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marco Gatti; Riccardo Faletti; Francesco Gentile; Enrico Soncin; Giorgio Calleris; Alberto Fornari; Marco Oderda; Alessandro Serafini; Giulio Antonino Strazzarino; Elena Vissio; Laura Bergamasco; Stefano Cirillo; Mauro Giulio Papotti; Paolo Gontero; Paolo Fonio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Boris Alexander Hadaschik; Stephan Tschirdewahn; Christopher Darr; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Claudia Kesch; Ulrich Krafft; Lukas Püllen; Nina Natascha Harke; Jochen Hess; Tibor Szarvas; Johannes Haubold; Henning Reis; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Ken Herrmann; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-10
Authors: André N Vis; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Henk G van der Poel; Alexander Mottrie; Philip D Stricker; Marcus Graefen; Vipul Patel; Bernardo Rocco; Birgit Lissenberg-Witte; Pim J van Leeuwen Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-11-09
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