Kulyada Eurboonyanun1,2, Nisanard Pisuchpen3,4, Aileen O'Shea1, Rita Maria Lahoud1, Isha D Atre1, Mukesh Harisinghani1. 1. Abdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. 3. Abdominal Imaging Division, Radiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. Nisanard.P@chula.ac.th. 4. Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Nisanard.P@chula.ac.th.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The broad-based capsule-tumor interface has been recognized as one of the worrisome imaging features in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the measurement method used in prior studies. OBJECTIVES: This study's objectives were to investigate and compare the accuracy between the curvilinear and linear measurement, find the optimal cut-off contact surface threshold for the diagnosis of EPE, and assess the benefit of the additional contact surface measurement versus visual assessment alone. METHODS: The status of EPE in mpMRI and the overall PI-RADS were assessed. The tumor's dimensions, the actual tumor-capsule contact length (ACTCL), and the absolute tumor-capsule contact length (ABTCL) were measured. The parameters were analyzed and correlated with the EPE status from prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients who underwent mpMRI followed by prostatectomy were included in the study. High Gleason score (score 8-9), radiologist's impression of EPE, and PI-RADS 5 were significantly correlated with EPE in surgical specimens (p = 0.014, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Both ACTCL and ABTCL of patients with EPE were significantly higher than those without EPE in all imaging sequences (p < 0.001 to p = 0.003). The ABTCL has higher accuracy than the ACTCL. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) was the most accurate sequence to measure the contact interface. The recommended cut-off value of ABTCL was 15.0 mm, which had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.86% and 72.09%. Multivariable analysis revealed that the ABTCL > 15 mm and the radiologist's impression on visual assessment were the only two independent predictors for the prediction of EPE (p = 0.048 and p = 0.016, respectively). Improvement of diagnostic performance was achieved when the two factors were combined. CONCLUSION: The ABTCL has better accuracy than the curvilinear measurement in the prediction of EPE. The optimum sequence for the measurement of the contact surface is the DCE. We recommended using 15.0 mm as a cut-off point. CLINICAL IMPACT: The addition of the ABTCL measurement showed an increase in diagnostic performance. We encourage radiologists to use the capsular contact measurement in addition to their visual assessment to detect EPE in pre-operative MRI.
BACKGROUND: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. The broad-based capsule-tumor interface has been recognized as one of the worrisome imaging features in multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the measurement method used in prior studies. OBJECTIVES: This study's objectives were to investigate and compare the accuracy between the curvilinear and linear measurement, find the optimal cut-off contact surface threshold for the diagnosis of EPE, and assess the benefit of the additional contact surface measurement versus visual assessment alone. METHODS: The status of EPE in mpMRI and the overall PI-RADS were assessed. The tumor's dimensions, the actual tumor-capsule contact length (ACTCL), and the absolute tumor-capsule contact length (ABTCL) were measured. The parameters were analyzed and correlated with the EPE status from prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients who underwent mpMRI followed by prostatectomy were included in the study. High Gleason score (score 8-9), radiologist's impression of EPE, and PI-RADS 5 were significantly correlated with EPE in surgical specimens (p = 0.014, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Both ACTCL and ABTCL of patients with EPE were significantly higher than those without EPE in all imaging sequences (p < 0.001 to p = 0.003). The ABTCL has higher accuracy than the ACTCL. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) was the most accurate sequence to measure the contact interface. The recommended cut-off value of ABTCL was 15.0 mm, which had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.86% and 72.09%. Multivariable analysis revealed that the ABTCL > 15 mm and the radiologist's impression on visual assessment were the only two independent predictors for the prediction of EPE (p = 0.048 and p = 0.016, respectively). Improvement of diagnostic performance was achieved when the two factors were combined. CONCLUSION: The ABTCL has better accuracy than the curvilinear measurement in the prediction of EPE. The optimum sequence for the measurement of the contact surface is the DCE. We recommended using 15.0 mm as a cut-off point. CLINICAL IMPACT: The addition of the ABTCL measurement showed an increase in diagnostic performance. We encourage radiologists to use the capsular contact measurement in addition to their visual assessment to detect EPE in pre-operative MRI.
Authors: Mira Keyes; Juanita Crook; Gerard Morton; Eric Vigneault; Nawaid Usmani; W James Morris Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Jada Kapoor; Benjamin Namdarian; John Pedersen; Chris Hovens; Daniel Moon; Justin Peters; Anthony J Costello; Paul Ruljancich; Niall M Corcoran Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096