Aydin Pooli1, David C Johnson1, Joseph Shirk1, Daniela Markovic2, Taylor Y Sadun1, Anthony E Sisk3, Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran4, Sohrab Afshari Mirak4, Ely R Felker4, Alexa K Hughes5, Steven S Raman4, Robert E Reiter1. 1. UCLA Institute of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Genitourinary Pathology, Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 5. UCLA Health.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oncologic efficacy of focal therapies in prostate cancer depends heavily on accurate tumor size estimation. We aim to evaluate the agreement between radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size, and identify predictors of pathological tumor size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single arm study cohort included all consecutive patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer and a corresponding PI-RADS®v2 3 or greater index tumor on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. Radiologic tumor size was defined as maximum tumor diameter on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and compared to whole mount histopathology tumor correlates. The difference between radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size was assessed, and clinical, pathological and radiographic predictors of pathological tumor size were examined. RESULTS: A total of 461 consecutive lesions in 441 men were included for statistical analysis. Mean radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size was 1.57 and 2.37 cm, respectively (p <0.001). Radiologic tumor size consistently underestimated pathological tumor size regardless of the preoperative covariates, and the degree of underestimation increased with smaller radiologic tumor size and lower PI-RADSv2 scores. Pathological tumor size was significantly larger for biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GG) 5 compared to GG1 (mean change 0.37 cm, p=0.014), PI-RADSv2 5 lesions compared to PI-RADSv2 4 (mean change 0.26, p=0.006) and higher prostate specific antigen density. The correlations between radiologic tumor size vs pathological tumor size according to biopsy GG and radiologic covariates were generally low with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.1 and 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging frequently underestimates pathological tumor size and the degree of underestimation increases with smaller radiologic tumor size and lower PI-RADSv2 scores. Therefore, a larger ablation margin may be required for smaller tumors and lesions with lower PI-RADSv2 scores. These variables must be considered when estimating treatment margins in focal therapy.
PURPOSE: Oncologic efficacy of focal therapies in prostate cancer depends heavily on accurate tumor size estimation. We aim to evaluate the agreement between radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size, and identify predictors of pathological tumor size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single arm study cohort included all consecutive patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer and a corresponding PI-RADS®v2 3 or greater index tumor on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. Radiologic tumor size was defined as maximum tumor diameter on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and compared to whole mount histopathology tumor correlates. The difference between radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size was assessed, and clinical, pathological and radiographic predictors of pathological tumor size were examined. RESULTS: A total of 461 consecutive lesions in 441 men were included for statistical analysis. Mean radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size was 1.57 and 2.37 cm, respectively (p <0.001). Radiologic tumor size consistently underestimated pathological tumor size regardless of the preoperative covariates, and the degree of underestimation increased with smaller radiologic tumor size and lower PI-RADSv2 scores. Pathological tumor size was significantly larger for biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GG) 5 compared to GG1 (mean change 0.37 cm, p=0.014), PI-RADSv2 5 lesions compared to PI-RADSv2 4 (mean change 0.26, p=0.006) and higher prostate specific antigen density. The correlations between radiologic tumor size vs pathological tumor size according to biopsy GG and radiologic covariates were generally low with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.1 and 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging frequently underestimates pathological tumor size and the degree of underestimation increases with smaller radiologic tumor size and lower PI-RADSv2 scores. Therefore, a larger ablation margin may be required for smaller tumors and lesions with lower PI-RADSv2 scores. These variables must be considered when estimating treatment margins in focal therapy.
Authors: Dominik Deniffel; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Stephanie Girgis; Gerard M Healy; Neil Fleshner; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; Ants Toi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Elena Bertelli; Laura Mercatelli; Chiara Marzi; Eva Pachetti; Michela Baccini; Andrea Barucci; Sara Colantonio; Luca Gherardini; Lorenzo Lattavo; Maria Antonietta Pascali; Simone Agostini; Vittorio Miele Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Juan Morote; Angel Borque-Fernando; Marina Triquell; Anna Celma; Lucas Regis; Richard Mast; Inés M de Torres; María E Semidey; Anna Santamaría; Jacques Planas; Luis M Esteban; Enrique Trilla Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Iulia Andras; Emanuel Darius Cata; Andreea Serban; Pierre Kadula; Teodora Telecan; Maximilian Buzoianu; Maria Bungardean; Dan Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Arnas Rakauskas; Giancarlo Marra; Isabel Heidegger; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alexander Kretschmer; Fabio Zattoni; Felix Preisser; Derya Tilki; Igor Tsaur; Roderick van den Bergh; Claudia Kesch; Francesco Ceci; Christian Fankhauser; Giorgio Gandaglia; Massimo Valerio Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-07-12