Andreas G Wibmer1, Joshua Chaim1, Yulia Lakhman1, Robert A Lefkowitz1, Josip Nincevic1, Ines Nikolovski1, Evis Sala1, Mithat Gonen2, Sigrid V Carlsson2,3,4, Samson W Fine5, Michael J Zelefsky6, Peter Scardino3, Hedvig Hricak1, Hebert Alberto Vargas1. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated whether T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging findings could improve upon established prognostic indicators of metastatic disease and prostate cancer specific survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a cohort of 3,406 consecutive men who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging before prostatectomy (2,160) or radiotherapy (1,246) between 2001 and 2006, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging exams were retrospectively interpreted and categorized as I) no focal suspicious lesion, II) organ confined focal lesion, III) focal lesion with extraprostatic extension or IV) focal lesion with seminal vesicle invasion. Clinical risk was recorded based on European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) scoring system. Survival probabilities and c-indices were estimated using Cox models and inverse probability censoring weights, respectively. RESULTS: The median followup was 10.8 years (IQR 8.6-13.0). Higher magnetic resonance imaging categories were associated with a higher likelihood of developing metastases (HR 3.5-18.1, p <0.001 for all magnetic resonance imaging categories) and prostate cancer death (HR 3.1-29.7, p <0.001-0.025); these associations were statistically independent of EAU risk categories, CAPRA scores and treatment type (surgery vs radiation). Combining EAU risk or CAPRA scores with magnetic resonance imaging categories significantly improved prognostication of metastases (c-indices: EAU: 0.798, EAU + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.872; CAPRA: 0.808, CAPRA + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.877) and prostate cancer death (c-indices: EAU 0.813, EAU + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.889; CAPRA: 0.814, CAPRA + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.892; p <0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging findings of localized prostate cancer are associated with clinically relevant long-term oncologic outcomes. Combining magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathological data results in more accurate prognostication, which could facilitate individualized patient management.
PURPOSE: We investigated whether T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging findings could improve upon established prognostic indicators of metastatic disease and prostate cancer specific survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a cohort of 3,406 consecutive men who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging before prostatectomy (2,160) or radiotherapy (1,246) between 2001 and 2006, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging exams were retrospectively interpreted and categorized as I) no focal suspicious lesion, II) organ confined focal lesion, III) focal lesion with extraprostatic extension or IV) focal lesion with seminal vesicle invasion. Clinical risk was recorded based on European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) scoring system. Survival probabilities and c-indices were estimated using Cox models and inverse probability censoring weights, respectively. RESULTS: The median followup was 10.8 years (IQR 8.6-13.0). Higher magnetic resonance imaging categories were associated with a higher likelihood of developing metastases (HR 3.5-18.1, p <0.001 for all magnetic resonance imaging categories) and prostate cancer death (HR 3.1-29.7, p <0.001-0.025); these associations were statistically independent of EAU risk categories, CAPRA scores and treatment type (surgery vs radiation). Combining EAU risk or CAPRA scores with magnetic resonance imaging categories significantly improved prognostication of metastases (c-indices: EAU: 0.798, EAU + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.872; CAPRA: 0.808, CAPRA + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.877) and prostate cancer death (c-indices: EAU 0.813, EAU + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.889; CAPRA: 0.814, CAPRA + magnetic resonance imaging: 0.892; p <0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging findings of localized prostate cancer are associated with clinically relevant long-term oncologic outcomes. Combining magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathological data results in more accurate prognostication, which could facilitate individualized patient management.
Authors: Hanan Goldberg; Ardalan E Ahmad; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Laurence Klotz; Mark Emberton; Masoom A Haider; Samir S Taneja; Karan Arora; Neil Fleshner; Antonio Finelli; Nathan Perlis; Mark D Tyson; Zachary Klaassen; Christopher J D Wallis Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Oguz Akin; Christopher C Riedl; Nicole M Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jingbo Zhang; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Chen; H Hricak; C L Kalbhen; J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; J M Weiss; P R Carroll Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; C Mathers; D M Parkin; M Piñeros; A Znaor; F Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Ines Nikolovski; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Evis Sala; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael W Kattan; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel Gorovets; Andreas G Wibmer; Assaf Moore; Stephanie Lobaugh; Zhigang Zhang; Marisa Kollmeier; Sean McBride; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2022-03-17
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