Timo F W Soeterik1,2, Tom A Hueting3, Bas Israel4,5, Harm H E van Melick2, Lea M Dijksman1,6, Saskia Stomps7, Douwe H Biesma1,6, Hendrik Koffijberg3, Michiel Sedelaar5, J Alfred Witjes5, Jean-Paul A van Basten8. 1. Department of Value-Based Healthcare, Santeon, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Value-Based Healthcare, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, Hospital Group Twente, Hengelo/Almelo, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. CONCLUSION: T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of using clinical stage assessed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on the performance of two established nomograms for the prediction of pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) from 2015 to 2019 at three teaching hospitals were retrospectively evaluated. Risk of LNI was calculated four times for each patient, using clinical tumour stage (T-stage) assessed by digital rectal examination (DRE) and by mpMRI, in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC; 2018) and Briganti (2012) nomograms. Discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), calibration, and the net benefit of these four strategies were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients were included, of whom 301 (28%) had histologically proven LNI. Using DRE T-stage resulted in AUCs of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.72) for the MSKCC and 0.73 (95% CI 0.72-0.74) for the Briganti nomogram. Using mpMRI T-stage, the AUCs were 0.72 (95% CI 0.71-0.73) for the MSKCC and 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76) for the Briganti nomogram. mpMRI T-stage resulted in equivalent calibration compared with DRE T-stage. Combined use of mpMRI T-stage and the Briganti 2012 nomogram was shown to be superior in terms of AUC, calibration, and net benefit. Use of mpMRI T-stage led to increased sensitivity for the detection of LNI for all risk thresholds in both models, countered by a decreased specificity, compared with DRE T-stage. CONCLUSION: T-stage as assessed by mpMRI is an appropriate alternative for T-stage assessed by DRE to determine nomogram-based risk of LNI in patients with prostate cancer, and was associated with improved model performance of both the MSKCC 2018 and Briganti 2012 nomograms.