David C Johnson1, Steven S Raman2, Sohrab A Mirak2, Lorna Kwan3, Amirhossein M Bajgiran2, William Hsu2, Cleo K Maehara2, Preeti Ahuja2, Izak Faiena3, Aydin Pooli3, Amirali Salmasi3, Anthony Sisk4, Ely R Felker2, David S K Lu2, Robert E Reiter5. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs/National Clinician Scholars Program, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: dcjohnson@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: rreiter@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) undoubtedly affects the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer (CaP). However, clinicians need a better understanding of its accuracy and limitations in detecting individual CaP foci to optimize management. OBJECTIVE: To determine the per-lesion detection rate for CaP foci by mpMRI and identify predictors of tumor detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of a prospectively managed database correlating lesion-specific results from mpMRI co-registered with whole-mount pathology (WMP) prostatectomy specimens from June 2010 to February 2018. Participants include 588 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven CaP undergoing 3-T mpMRI before radical prostatectomy at a single tertiary institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured mpMRI sensitivity in detecting individual CaP and clinically significant (any Gleason score ≥7) CaP foci and predictors of tumor detection using multivariate analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The final analysis included 1213 pathologically confirmed tumor foci in 588 patients with primarily intermediate- (75%) or high-risk (12%) CaP. mpMRI detected 45% of all lesions (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-47%), including 65% of clinically significant lesions (95% CI 61-69%) and nearly 80% of high-grade tumors. Some 74% and 31% of missed solitary and multifocal tumors, respectively, were clinically significant. The majority of missed lesions were small (61.1% ≤1cm); 28.3% were between 1 and 2cm, and 10.4% were >2cm. mpMRI missed at least one clinically significant focus in 34% of patients overall, and in 45% of men with multifocal lesions. On multivariate analysis, smaller, low-grade, multifocal, nonindex tumors with lower prostate-specific antigen density were more likely to be missed. Limitations include selection bias in a prostatectomy cohort, lack of specificity data, an imperfect co-registration process, and uncertain clinical significance for undetected lesions. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI detects less than half of all and less than two-thirds of clinically significant CaP foci. The moderate per-lesion sensitivity and significant proportion of men with undetected tumor foci demonstrate the current limitations of mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate before surgical removal for prostate cancer finds less than half of all individual prostate cancer tumors. Large, solitary, aggressive tumors are more likely to be visualized on imaging. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) undoubtedly affects the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer (CaP). However, clinicians need a better understanding of its accuracy and limitations in detecting individual CaP foci to optimize management. OBJECTIVE: To determine the per-lesion detection rate for CaP foci by mpMRI and identify predictors of tumor detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of a prospectively managed database correlating lesion-specific results from mpMRI co-registered with whole-mount pathology (WMP) prostatectomy specimens from June 2010 to February 2018. Participants include 588 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven CaP undergoing 3-T mpMRI before radical prostatectomy at a single tertiary institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured mpMRI sensitivity in detecting individual CaP and clinically significant (any Gleason score ≥7) CaP foci and predictors of tumor detection using multivariate analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The final analysis included 1213 pathologically confirmed tumor foci in 588 patients with primarily intermediate- (75%) or high-risk (12%) CaP. mpMRI detected 45% of all lesions (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-47%), including 65% of clinically significant lesions (95% CI 61-69%) and nearly 80% of high-grade tumors. Some 74% and 31% of missed solitary and multifocal tumors, respectively, were clinically significant. The majority of missed lesions were small (61.1% ≤1cm); 28.3% were between 1 and 2cm, and 10.4% were >2cm. mpMRI missed at least one clinically significant focus in 34% of patients overall, and in 45% of men with multifocal lesions. On multivariate analysis, smaller, low-grade, multifocal, nonindex tumors with lower prostate-specific antigen density were more likely to be missed. Limitations include selection bias in a prostatectomy cohort, lack of specificity data, an imperfect co-registration process, and uncertain clinical significance for undetected lesions. CONCLUSIONS: mpMRI detects less than half of all and less than two-thirds of clinically significant CaP foci. The moderate per-lesion sensitivity and significant proportion of men with undetected tumor foci demonstrate the current limitations of mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate before surgical removal for prostate cancer finds less than half of all individual prostate cancer tumors. Large, solitary, aggressive tumors are more likely to be visualized on imaging. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; David S K Lu; Mitch Tuttle; Daniel J Margolis; Fuad F ElKhoury; James Sayre; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrei S Purysko; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Omar Y Mian; Sarah Sittenfeld; Elai Davicioni; Marguerite du Plessis; Christine Buerki; Jennifer Bullen; Lin Li; Anant Madabhushi; Andrew Stephenson; Eric A Klein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Leonard S Marks; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Richard E Fan; Michael D Gross; Elizabeth Mauer; Samprit Banerjee; Stefanie Hectors; Sigrid Carlsson; Daniel J Margolis; Jim C Hu Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jean-Michel Correas; Ethan J Halpern; Richard G Barr; Sangeet Ghai; Jochen Walz; Sylvain Bodard; Charles Dariane; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Jeremy B Kaplan; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Mandeep Takhar; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Matthew Lee; Junhee Yoon; Daniel H Hovelson; Komal R Plouffe; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Edward M Schaeffer; R Jeffrey Karnes; Tamara L Lotan; Todd M Morgan; Arvin K George; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Matthew S Davenport; Sungyong You; Scott A Tomlins; Nicole E Curci; Hyung L Kim; Daniel E Spratt; Aaron M Udager; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245