BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether clinical models including the Partin tables (PT), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (MSKCCn), and the cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA) can benefit from incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) when staging prostate cancer (PCa). PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of clinical models, mpMRI, and mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3 of PCa. STUDY TYPE: Prospective monocentric cohort study. POPULATION: Seventy-three patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2016-2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T using turbo spin echo (TSE) imaging, single-shot echoplanar diffusion-weighted imaging, and T1 -weighted high-resolution-isotropic-volume-examination (THRIVE) contrast-enhanced imaging. ASSESSMENT: We calculated the probability of extraprostatic extension (EPE) using the PT and MSKCC, as well as the CAPRA score. Three readers with 2-8 years of experience in mpMRI independently staged PCa on imaging. STATISTICAL TESTS: Receiver operating characteristics analysis and logistic regression analysis to investigate the per-patient accuracy of mpMRI vs. clinical models vs. mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3. The alpha level was 0.05. RESULTS: Median probability for EPE and MSKCCn was 27.3% and 47.0%, respectively. Median CAPRA score was 3. Stage ≥pT3 occurred in 32.9% of patients. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were 0.62 for PT, 0.62 for MSKCCn, 0.64 for CAPRA, and 0.73-0.75 for mpMRI (readers 1-3) (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Compared with mpMRI, the combination of mpMRI with PT or MSKCCn provided lower AUCs (P > 0.05 for all the readers), while the combination with CAPRA provided significantly higher (P < 0.05) AUCs in the case of readers 1 and 3. On multivariable analysis, mpMRI by reader 1 was the only independent predictor of stage ≥pT3 (odds ratio 7.40). DATA CONCLUSION: mpMRI was more accurate than clinical models and mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3, except for the combination of mpMRI and CAPRA in two out of three readers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1604-1613.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether clinical models including the Partin tables (PT), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (MSKCCn), and the cancer of the prostate risk assessment (CAPRA) can benefit from incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) when staging prostate cancer (PCa). PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of clinical models, mpMRI, and mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3 of PCa. STUDY TYPE: Prospective monocentric cohort study. POPULATION: Seventy-three patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2016-2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T using turbo spin echo (TSE) imaging, single-shot echoplanar diffusion-weighted imaging, and T1 -weighted high-resolution-isotropic-volume-examination (THRIVE) contrast-enhanced imaging. ASSESSMENT: We calculated the probability of extraprostatic extension (EPE) using the PT and MSKCC, as well as the CAPRA score. Three readers with 2-8 years of experience in mpMRI independently staged PCa on imaging. STATISTICAL TESTS: Receiver operating characteristics analysis and logistic regression analysis to investigate the per-patient accuracy of mpMRI vs. clinical models vs. mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3. The alpha level was 0.05. RESULTS: Median probability for EPE and MSKCCn was 27.3% and 47.0%, respectively. Median CAPRA score was 3. Stage ≥pT3 occurred in 32.9% of patients. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were 0.62 for PT, 0.62 for MSKCCn, 0.64 for CAPRA, and 0.73-0.75 for mpMRI (readers 1-3) (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Compared with mpMRI, the combination of mpMRI with PT or MSKCCn provided lower AUCs (P > 0.05 for all the readers), while the combination with CAPRA provided significantly higher (P < 0.05) AUCs in the case of readers 1 and 3. On multivariable analysis, mpMRI by reader 1 was the only independent predictor of stage ≥pT3 (odds ratio 7.40). DATA CONCLUSION: mpMRI was more accurate than clinical models and mpMRI plus clinical models in predicting stage ≥pT3, except for the combination of mpMRI and CAPRA in two out of three readers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1604-1613.
Authors: Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu; Adharsh Murali; Daniela Wittmann; Brian Denton; Rodney L Dunn; James Montie; James Peabody; David Miller; Karandeep Singh Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-04-18
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: Artitaya Lophatananon; Matthew H V Byrne; Tristan Barrett; Anne Warren; Kenneth Muir; Ibifuro Dokubo; Fanos Georgiades; Mostafa Sheba; Lisa Bibby; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.638
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