Andrei S Purysko1, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi2, Omar Y Mian3, Sarah Sittenfeld3, Elai Davicioni4, Marguerite du Plessis4, Christine Buerki4, Jennifer Bullen5, Lin Li6, Anant Madabhushi6, Andrew Stephenson7, Eric A Klein7. 1. Abdominal Imaging Section and Nuclear Radiology Department, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. puryska@ccf.org. 2. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 3. Radiation Oncology and Translational Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 4. GenomeDx Biosciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the correlation between MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 and the Decipher Genomic Classifier (used to estimate the risk of early metastases). METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 72 nonconsecutive men with prostate cancer who underwent MRI before radical prostatectomy performed between April 2014 and August 2017 and whose MRI registered lesions were microdissected from radical prostatectomy specimens and then profiled using Decipher (89 lesions; 23 MRI invisible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≤ 2] and 66 MRI visible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≥ 3]). Linear regression analysis was used to assess clinicopathologic and MRI predictors of Decipher results; correlation coefficients (r) were used to quantify these associations. AUC was used to determine whether PI-RADS v2 could accurately distinguish between low-risk (Decipher score < 0.45) and intermediate-/high-risk (Decipher score ≥ 0.45) lesions. RESULTS: MRI-visible lesions had higher Decipher scores than MRI-invisible lesions (mean difference 0.22; 95% CI 0.13, 0.32; p < 0.0001); most MRI-invisible lesions (82.6%) were low risk. PI-RADS v2 had moderate correlation with Decipher (r = 0.54) and had higher accuracy (AUC 0.863) than prostate cancer grade groups (AUC 0.780) in peripheral zone lesions (95% CI for difference 0.01, 0.15; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer are positively correlated with Decipher risk groups. Although PI-RADS v2 can accurately distinguish between lesions classified by Decipher as low or intermediate/high risk, some lesions classified as intermediate/high risk by Decipher are invisible on MRI. KEY POINTS: • MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 positively correlated with a genomic classifier that estimates the risk of early metastases. • Most but not all MRI-invisible lesions had a low risk for early metastases according to the genomic classifier. • MRI could be used in conjunction with genomic assays to identify lesions that may carry biological potential for early metastases.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the correlation between MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 and the Decipher Genomic Classifier (used to estimate the risk of early metastases). METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 72 nonconsecutive men with prostate cancer who underwent MRI before radical prostatectomy performed between April 2014 and August 2017 and whose MRI registered lesions were microdissected from radical prostatectomy specimens and then profiled using Decipher (89 lesions; 23 MRI invisible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≤ 2] and 66 MRI visible [PI-RADS v2 scores ≥ 3]). Linear regression analysis was used to assess clinicopathologic and MRI predictors of Decipher results; correlation coefficients (r) were used to quantify these associations. AUC was used to determine whether PI-RADS v2 could accurately distinguish between low-risk (Decipher score < 0.45) and intermediate-/high-risk (Decipher score ≥ 0.45) lesions. RESULTS: MRI-visible lesions had higher Decipher scores than MRI-invisible lesions (mean difference 0.22; 95% CI 0.13, 0.32; p < 0.0001); most MRI-invisible lesions (82.6%) were low risk. PI-RADS v2 had moderate correlation with Decipher (r = 0.54) and had higher accuracy (AUC 0.863) than prostate cancer grade groups (AUC 0.780) in peripheral zone lesions (95% CI for difference 0.01, 0.15; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer are positively correlated with Decipher risk groups. Although PI-RADS v2 can accurately distinguish between lesions classified by Decipher as low or intermediate/high risk, some lesions classified as intermediate/high risk by Decipher are invisible on MRI. KEY POINTS: • MRI phenotypes of prostate cancer as defined by PI-RADS v2 positively correlated with a genomic classifier that estimates the risk of early metastases. • Most but not all MRI-invisible lesions had a low risk for early metastases according to the genomic classifier. • MRI could be used in conjunction with genomic assays to identify lesions that may carry biological potential for early metastases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Genes; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Robert B Den; Kasra Yousefi; Edouard J Trabulsi; Firas Abdollah; Voleak Choeurng; Felix Y Feng; Adam P Dicker; Costas D Lallas; Leonard G Gomella; Elai Davicioni; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul C Boutros; Michael Fraser; Nicholas J Harding; Richard de Borja; Dominique Trudel; Emilie Lalonde; Alice Meng; Pablo H Hennings-Yeomans; Andrew McPherson; Veronica Y Sabelnykova; Amin Zia; Natalie S Fox; Julie Livingstone; Yu-Jia Shiah; Jianxin Wang; Timothy A Beck; Cherry L Have; Taryne Chong; Michelle Sam; Jeremy Johns; Lee Timms; Nicholas Buchner; Ada Wong; John D Watson; Trent T Simmons; Christine P'ng; Gaetano Zafarana; Francis Nguyen; Xuemei Luo; Kenneth C Chu; Stephenie D Prokopec; Jenna Sykes; Alan Dal Pra; Alejandro Berlin; Andrew Brown; Michelle A Chan-Seng-Yue; Fouad Yousif; Robert E Denroche; Lauren C Chong; Gregory M Chen; Esther Jung; Clement Fung; Maud H W Starmans; Hanbo Chen; Shaylan K Govind; James Hawley; Alister D'Costa; Melania Pintilie; Daryl Waggott; Faraz Hach; Philippe Lambin; Lakshmi B Muthuswamy; Colin Cooper; Rosalind Eeles; David Neal; Bernard Tetu; Cenk Sahinalp; Lincoln D Stein; Neil Fleshner; Sohrab P Shah; Colin C Collins; Thomas J Hudson; John D McPherson; Theodorus van der Kwast; Robert G Bristow Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Seyed Saeid Dianat; H Ballentine Carter; Kenneth J Pienta; Edward M Schaeffer; Patricia K Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: R Jeffrey Karnes; Eric J Bergstralh; Elai Davicioni; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Anirban P Mitra; Anamaria Crisan; Nicholas Erho; Ismael A Vergara; Lucia L Lam; Rachel Carlson; Darby J S Thompson; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Timothy J Triche; Thomas Kollmeyer; Karla V Ballman; Peter C Black; George G Klee; Robert B Jenkins Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sung Yoon Park; Young Taik Oh; Dae Chul Jung; Nam Hoon Cho; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha; Sung Joon Hong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicholas Erho; Anamaria Crisan; Ismael A Vergara; Anirban P Mitra; Mercedeh Ghadessi; Christine Buerki; Eric J Bergstralh; Thomas Kollmeyer; Stephanie Fink; Zaid Haddad; Benedikt Zimmermann; Thomas Sierocinski; Karla V Ballman; Timothy J Triche; Peter C Black; R Jeffrey Karnes; George Klee; Elai Davicioni; Robert B Jenkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marcin Miszczyk; Justyna Rembak-Szynkiewicz; Łukasz Magrowski; Konrad Stawiski; Agnieszka Namysł-Kaletka; Aleksandra Napieralska; Małgorzata Kraszkiewicz; Grzegorz Woźniak; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Grzegorz Głowacki; Benjamin Pradere; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Paweł Rajwa; Wojciech Majewski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Amanda Khoo; Lydia Y Liu; Taylor Y Sadun; Amirali Salmasi; Aydin Pooli; Ely Felker; Kathleen E Houlahan; Vladimir Ignatchenko; Steven S Raman; Anthony E Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Paul C Boutros; Thomas Kislinger Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 23.168
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Benjamin S Simpson; Marina A Parry; Clare Allen; Rhys Ball; Alex Freeman; Daniel Kelly; Hyung L Kim; Alex Kirkham; Sungyong You; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-07