Vinay Prabhu1, Andrew B Rosenkrantz1, Ricardo Otazo2, Daniel K Sodickson1, Stella K Kang1,3. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 3. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences in prostate MRI compared with noncontrast MRI is controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the population net benefit of risk stratification using DCE-MRI for detection of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCA), with or without high spatiotemporal resolution DCE imaging. STUDY TYPE: Decision curve analysis. POPULATION: Previously published patient studies on MRI for HGPCA detection, one using DCE with golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) images and the other using standard DCE-MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: GRASP or standard DCE-MRI at 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Each study reported the proportion of lesions with HGPCA in each Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) category (1-5), before and after reclassification of peripheral zone lesions from PI-RADS 3-4 based on contrast-enhanced images. This additional risk stratifying information was translated to population net benefit, when biopsy was hypothetically performed for: all lesions, no lesions, PI-RADS ≥3 (using NC-MRI), and PI-RADS ≥4 on DCE. STATISTICAL TESTS: Decision curve analysis was performed for both GRASP and standard DCE-MRI data, translating the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies and detection of HGPCA to population net benefit. We standardized net benefit values for HGPCA prevalence and graphically summarized the comparative net benefit of biopsy strategies. RESULTS: For a clinically relevant range of risk thresholds for HGPCA (>11%), GRASP DCE-MRI with biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions provided the highest net benefit, while biopsy of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions provided highest net benefit at low personal risk thresholds (2-11%). In the same range of risk thresholds using standard DCE-MRI, the optimal strategy was biopsy for all lesions (0-15% risk threshold) or PI-RADS ≥3 on NC-MRI (16-33% risk threshold). DATA CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI may potentially enable biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, providing relatively preserved detection of HGPCA and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies compared with biopsy of all PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1400-1408.
BACKGROUND: The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequences in prostate MRI compared with noncontrast MRI is controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the population net benefit of risk stratification using DCE-MRI for detection of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPCA), with or without high spatiotemporal resolution DCE imaging. STUDY TYPE: Decision curve analysis. POPULATION: Previously published patient studies on MRI for HGPCA detection, one using DCE with golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP) images and the other using standard DCE-MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: GRASP or standard DCE-MRI at 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Each study reported the proportion of lesions with HGPCA in each Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) category (1-5), before and after reclassification of peripheral zone lesions from PI-RADS 3-4 based on contrast-enhanced images. This additional risk stratifying information was translated to population net benefit, when biopsy was hypothetically performed for: all lesions, no lesions, PI-RADS ≥3 (using NC-MRI), and PI-RADS ≥4 on DCE. STATISTICAL TESTS: Decision curve analysis was performed for both GRASP and standard DCE-MRI data, translating the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies and detection of HGPCA to population net benefit. We standardized net benefit values for HGPCA prevalence and graphically summarized the comparative net benefit of biopsy strategies. RESULTS: For a clinically relevant range of risk thresholds for HGPCA (>11%), GRASP DCE-MRI with biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions provided the highest net benefit, while biopsy of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions provided highest net benefit at low personal risk thresholds (2-11%). In the same range of risk thresholds using standard DCE-MRI, the optimal strategy was biopsy for all lesions (0-15% risk threshold) or PI-RADS ≥3 on NC-MRI (16-33% risk threshold). DATA CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI may potentially enable biopsy of PI-RADS ≥4 lesions, providing relatively preserved detection of HGPCA and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies compared with biopsy of all PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1400-1408.
Authors: Andrei S Purysko; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jelle O Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; David F Kallmes; Mark E Jentoft; David L Murray; Kent R Thielen; Eric E Williamson; Laurence J Eckel Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Aytekin Oto; Sandra Bednarova; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Sonia Gaur; Stephanie A Harmon; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Tanimola Martins; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Jonathan Banks; Rosalind Raine; William Hamilton Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Tyler M Seibert; Chun Chieh Fan; Yunpeng Wang; Verena Zuber; Roshan Karunamuni; J Kellogg Parsons; Rosalind A Eeles; Douglas F Easton; ZSofia Kote-Jarai; Ali Amin Al Olama; Sara Benlloch Garcia; Kenneth Muir; Henrik Grönberg; Fredrik Wiklund; Markus Aly; Johanna Schleutker; Csilla Sipeky; Teuvo Lj Tammela; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Maren Weischer; Rasmus Bisbjerg; M Andreas Røder; Peter Iversen; Tim J Key; Ruth C Travis; David E Neal; Jenny L Donovan; Freddie C Hamdy; Paul Pharoah; Nora Pashayan; Kay-Tee Khaw; Christiane Maier; Walther Vogel; Manuel Luedeke; Kathleen Herkommer; Adam S Kibel; Cezary Cybulski; Dominika Wokolorczyk; Wojciech Kluzniak; Lisa Cannon-Albright; Hermann Brenner; Katarina Cuk; Kai-Uwe Saum; Jong Y Park; Thomas A Sellers; Chavdar Slavov; Radka Kaneva; Vanio Mitev; Jyotsna Batra; Judith A Clements; Amanda Spurdle; Manuel R Teixeira; Paula Paulo; Sofia Maia; Hardev Pandha; Agnieszka Michael; Andrzej Kierzek; David S Karow; Ian G Mills; Ole A Andreassen; Anders M Dale Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-01-10
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan Banks; Sandra Hollinghurst; Lin Bigwood; Tim J Peters; Fiona M Walter; Willie Hamilton Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 41.316