Andreas M Hötker1, Evelyn Dappa2, Yousef Mazaheri3, Behfar Ehdaie4,5, Junting Zheng5, Marinela Capanu5, Hedvig Hricak6, Oguz Akin6. 1. 1 Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. 2. 2 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. 4 Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. 5 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 6. 6 Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system for background signal intensity changes or prostate homogeneity on prostate MRI and to assess these changes' influence on cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 418 prostate MRI examinations in 385 men who subsequently underwent MRI-guided biopsy. The Likert score for suspicion of cancer assigned by the primary radiologist was extracted from the original report, and histopathologic work-up of the biopsy cores served as the reference standard. Two readers assessed the amount of changes on T2-weighted sequences and assigned a predefined prostate signal-intensity homogeneity score of 1-5 (1 = poor, extensive changes; 5 = excellent, no changes). The sensitivity and specificity of Likert scores for detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) were estimated in and compared between subgroups of patients with different signal-intensity homogeneity scores (≤ 2, 3, and ≥ 4). RESULTS: Interreader agreement on signal-intensity homogeneity scores was substantial (κ = 0.783). Sensitivity for prostate cancer detection increased when scores were better (i.e., higher) (reader 1, from 0.41 to 0.71; reader 2, from 0.53 to 0.73; p ≤ 0.007, both readers). In the detection of significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4), sensitivity also increased with higher signal-intensity scores (reader 1, from 0.50 to 0.82; reader 2, from 0.63 to 0.86; p ≤ 0.028), though specificity decreased significantly for one reader (from 0.67 to 0.38; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Background signal-intensity changes on T2-weighted images significantly limit prostate cancer detection. The proposed scoring system could improve the standardization of prostate MRI reporting and provide guidance for applying prostate MRI results appropriately in clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system for background signal intensity changes or prostate homogeneity on prostate MRI and to assess these changes' influence on cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 418 prostate MRI examinations in 385 men who subsequently underwent MRI-guided biopsy. The Likert score for suspicion of cancer assigned by the primary radiologist was extracted from the original report, and histopathologic work-up of the biopsy cores served as the reference standard. Two readers assessed the amount of changes on T2-weighted sequences and assigned a predefined prostate signal-intensity homogeneity score of 1-5 (1 = poor, extensive changes; 5 = excellent, no changes). The sensitivity and specificity of Likert scores for detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) were estimated in and compared between subgroups of patients with different signal-intensity homogeneity scores (≤ 2, 3, and ≥ 4). RESULTS: Interreader agreement on signal-intensity homogeneity scores was substantial (κ = 0.783). Sensitivity for prostate cancer detection increased when scores were better (i.e., higher) (reader 1, from 0.41 to 0.71; reader 2, from 0.53 to 0.73; p ≤ 0.007, both readers). In the detection of significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4), sensitivity also increased with higher signal-intensity scores (reader 1, from 0.50 to 0.82; reader 2, from 0.63 to 0.86; p ≤ 0.028), though specificity decreased significantly for one reader (from 0.67 to 0.38; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Background signal-intensity changes on T2-weighted images significantly limit prostate cancer detection. The proposed scoring system could improve the standardization of prostate MRI reporting and provide guidance for applying prostate MRI results appropriately in clinical decision-making.
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A B Rosenkrantz; T C Mussi; N Hindman; R P Lim; M X Kong; J S Babb; J Melamed; S S Taneja Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: S White; H Hricak; R Forstner; J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; C J Zaloudek; J M Weiss; P Narayan; P R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yi Li; John Mongan; Spencer C Behr; Seema Sud; Fergus V Coakley; Jeffry Simko; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: Radiographics Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321