Literature DB >> 33778694

Assessing Extraprostatic Extension with Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate: Mehralivand Extraprostatic Extension Grade or Extraprostatic Extension Likert Scale?

Lars A R Reisæter1, Ole J Halvorsen1, Christian Beisland1, Alfred Honoré1, Karsten Gravdal1, Are Losnegård1, Jan Monssen1, Lars A Akslen1, Martin Biermann1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To validate the MRI grading system proposed by Mehralivand et al in 2019 (the "extraprostatic extension [EPE] grade") in an independent cohort and to compare the Mehralivand EPE grading system with EPE interpretation on the basis of a five-point Likert score ("EPE Likert"). Materials and
Methods: A total of 310 consecutive patients underwent multiparametric MRI according to a standardized institutional protocol before radical prostatectomy was performed by using the same 1.5-T MRI unit at a single institution between 2010 and 2012. Two radiologists blinded to clinical information assessed EPE according to standardized criteria. On the basis of the readings performed until 2017, the diagnostic performance of EPE Likert and Mehralivand EPE score were compared using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and decision curve methodology against histologic EPE as standard of reference. Prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log rank test.
Results: Of the 310 patients, 80 patients (26%) had EPE, including 33 with radial distance 1.1 mm or greater. Interrater reliability was fair (weighted κ 0.47 and 0.45) for both EPE grade and EPE Likert. Sensitivity for identifying EPE using EPE grade versus EPE Likert was 0.83 versus 0.86 and 0.86 versus 0.91 for radiologist 1 and 2, respectively. Specificity was 0.48 versus 0.58 and 0.39 versus 0.70 (P < .05 for radiologist 2). There were no significant differences in the ROC area under the curve or on decision curve analysis. Both EPE grade and EPE Likert were significant predictors of BRFS.
Conclusion: Mehralivand EPE grade and EPE Likert have equivalent diagnostic performance for predicting EPE and BRFS with a similar degree of observer dependence.© RSNA, 2020Keywords: MR-Imaging, Neoplasms-Primary, Observer Performance, Outcomes Analysis, Prostate, StagingSupplemental material is available for this article.See also the commentary by Choyke in this issue. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33778694      PMCID: PMC7983691          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2019190071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  44 in total

1.  Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Eduard Baco; Erik Rud; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Aud Svindland; Heidi B Eggesbø; Andrew J Hung; Toru Matsugasumi; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Inderbir S Gill; Osamu Ukimura
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence: A new proposal for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ming-Tse Sung; Haiqun Lin; Michael O Koch; Darrell D Davidson; Liang Cheng
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  A simple versatile solution for collecting multidimensional clinical data based on the CakePHP web application framework.

Authors:  Martin Biermann
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  Preoperative 3-T diffusion-weighted MRI for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of extracapsular extension in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Edward M Lawrence; Ferdia A Gallagher; Tristan Barrett; Anne Y Warren; Andrew N Priest; Debra A Goldman; Deborah Goldman; Evis Sala; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Men with low preoperative sexual function may benefit from nerve sparing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Catherine R Harris; Sanoj Punnen; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prostate cancer staging with extracapsular extension risk scoring using multiparametric MRI: a correlation with histopathology.

Authors:  Lars Boesen; Elizaveta Chabanova; Vibeke Løgager; Ingegerd Balslev; Kari Mikines; Henrik S Thomsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging--initial results.

Authors:  B Nicolas Bloch; Edna Furman-Haran; Thomas H Helbich; Robert E Lenkinski; Hadassa Degani; Christian Kratzik; Martin Susani; Andrea Haitel; Silvia Jaromi; Long Ngo; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  1.5-T multiparametric MRI using PI-RADS: a region by region analysis to localize the index-tumor of prostate cancer in patients undergoing prostatectomy.

Authors:  Lars A Reisæter; Jurgen J Fütterer; Ole J Halvorsen; Yngve Nygård; Martin Biermann; Erling Andersen; Karsten Gravdal; Svein Haukaas; Jan A Monssen; Henkjan J Huisman; Lars A Akslen; Christian Beisland; Jarle Rørvik
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 1.990

9.  Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: A potential biomarker for staging and prognosis.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Richard Ho; Raju Chelluri; Francesca Mertan; Thomas P Frye; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 10.  Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Masoom A Haider; Anwar R Padhani; Geert Villeirs; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Daniel J Margolis; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadhna Verma; Jelle Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  5 in total

1.  Negative mpMRI Rules Out Extra-Prostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer before Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Eoin Dinneen; Clare Allen; Tom Strange; Daniel Heffernan-Ho; Jelena Banjeglav; Jamie Lindsay; John-Patrick Mulligan; Tim Briggs; Senthil Nathan; Ashwin Sridhar; Jack Grierson; Aiman Haider; Christos Panayi; Dominic Patel; Alex Freeman; Jonathan Aning; Raj Persad; Imran Ahmad; Lorenzo Dutto; Neil Oakley; Alessandro Ambrosi; Tom Parry; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Francesco Giganti; Greg Shaw; Shonit Punwani
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-23

2.  External Validation of the Extraprostatic Extension Grade on MRI and Its Incremental Value to Clinical Models for Assessing Extraprostatic Cancer.

Authors:  Lili Xu; Gumuyang Zhang; Xiaoxiao Zhang; Xin Bai; Weigang Yan; Yu Xiao; Hao Sun; Zhengyu Jin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Diagnostic Performance of Extraprostatic Extension Grading System for Detection of Extraprostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Wei Li; Wenwen Shang; Feng Lu; Yuan Sun; Jun Tian; Yiman Wu; Anding Dong
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 4.  Current Opinion on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Jamie Michael; Kevin Neuzil; Ersan Altun; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.989

5.  MRI Extraprostatic Extension Grade: Accuracy and Clinical Incremental Value in the Assessment of Extraprostatic Cancer.

Authors:  Jun-Yi Xiang; Xiao-Shan Huang; Jian-Xia Xu; Ren-Hua Huang; Xiao-Zhong Zheng; Li-Ming Xue; Yu-Long Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 3.246

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.