Dordaneh Sugano1, Abhinav Sidana1, Amit L Jain2, Brian Calio1, Sonia Gaur3, Mahir Maruf1, Maria Merino4, Peter Choyke3, Baris Turkbey3, Bradford J Wood5, Peter A Pinto1. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. jain.amitlodha@gmail.com. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, there is a dearth of data concerning the impact of hypogonadism on prostate cancer detection by imaging. In this study, we evaluated the performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and mpMRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in hypogonadal patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic data from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database of patients who underwent 3T mpMRI and fusion biopsy between 2007 and 2016 were analyzed. Hypogonadism was defined by an institutional cutoff of serum testosterone ≤ 180 ng/dL; T2, DWI, and DCE scores were calculated from mpMRI. Cancer detection rates were compared by Chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to evaluate the impact of hypogonadism on clinically significant cancer detection by systematic and fusion biopsy. RESULTS: We included 522 patients in our study who had total testosterone levels measured within 90 days of mpMRI. Of these, 49 (9.4%) were hypogonadal. Median total testosterone was 148 ng/dL (IQR 41) in the hypogonadal group, and 304 ng/dL (IQR 132) in the normogonadal group (p < 0.001). Imaging results were comparable between the hypo and normogonadal groups. In the hypogonadal group, systematic biopsy detected clinically significant cancer in 28.6% of patients compared to 40.8% with fusion biopsy. In the normogonadal cohort, systematic and fusion biopsy detected 37.3% and 43.2% CS cancer, respectively. In the hypogonadal cohort, fusion biopsy detected 12.2% more CS cancers compared to systematic biopsy, while it detected only 5.9% more in the normogonadal cohort. On multivariate analysis, hypogonadism was found to be an independent predictor of decreased CS cancer detection on systematic (p = 0.048), but not on fusion biopsy (p = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS: Hypogonadism is an independent predictor of lower CS cancer detection on systematic biopsy. However, it fails to significantly impact CS detection on fusion biopsy with comparable cancer detection rates in both groups. Patients with hypogonadism may benefit more from fusion biopsy than normogonadal patients.
PURPOSE: Currently, there is a dearth of data concerning the impact of hypogonadism on prostate cancer detection by imaging. In this study, we evaluated the performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and mpMRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in hypogonadal patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic data from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database of patients who underwent 3T mpMRI and fusion biopsy between 2007 and 2016 were analyzed. Hypogonadism was defined by an institutional cutoff of serum testosterone ≤ 180 ng/dL; T2, DWI, and DCE scores were calculated from mpMRI. Cancer detection rates were compared by Chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to evaluate the impact of hypogonadism on clinically significant cancer detection by systematic and fusion biopsy. RESULTS: We included 522 patients in our study who had total testosterone levels measured within 90 days of mpMRI. Of these, 49 (9.4%) were hypogonadal. Median total testosterone was 148 ng/dL (IQR 41) in the hypogonadal group, and 304 ng/dL (IQR 132) in the normogonadal group (p < 0.001). Imaging results were comparable between the hypo and normogonadal groups. In the hypogonadal group, systematic biopsy detected clinically significant cancer in 28.6% of patients compared to 40.8% with fusion biopsy. In the normogonadal cohort, systematic and fusion biopsy detected 37.3% and 43.2% CS cancer, respectively. In the hypogonadal cohort, fusion biopsy detected 12.2% more CS cancers compared to systematic biopsy, while it detected only 5.9% more in the normogonadal cohort. On multivariate analysis, hypogonadism was found to be an independent predictor of decreased CS cancer detection on systematic (p = 0.048), but not on fusion biopsy (p = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS:Hypogonadism is an independent predictor of lower CS cancer detection on systematic biopsy. However, it fails to significantly impact CS detection on fusion biopsy with comparable cancer detection rates in both groups. Patients with hypogonadism may benefit more from fusion biopsy than normogonadal patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hypogonadism; Image-guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms
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: A Pichon; Y Neuzillet; H Botto; J-P Raynaud; C Radulescu; V Molinié; J-M Herve; T Lebret Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Ginger Isom-Batz; Fernando J Bianco; Michael W Kattan; John P Mulhall; Hans Lilja; James A Eastham Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Taekmin Kwon; In Gab Jeong; Dalsan You; Myung-Chan Park; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Eduardo García-Cruz; Marta Piqueras; Jorge Huguet; Lluis Peri; Laura Izquierdo; Mireia Musquera; Agustin Franco; Ricardo Alvarez-Vijande; Maria Jose Ribal; Antonio Alcaraz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Elton Llukani; Benjamin F Katz; Ilir Agalliu; Andrew Lightfoot; Sue-Jean S Yu; Martin Kathrins; Ziho Lee; Yu-Kai Su; Kelly Monahan Agnew; Alice McGill; Daniel D Eun; David I Lee Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2017-01-12