Filippo Pesapane1,2, Marzia Acquasanta3, Rosario Di Meo3, Giorgio Maria Agazzi4, Priyan Tantrige5, Marina Codari6, Simone Schiaffino7, Francesca Patella8, Anastasia Esseridou7, Francesco Sardanelli1. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Santa Sofia, 9, 20122 Milano, Italy. 2. Breast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milano, Italy. 3. Postgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Santa Sofia, 9, 20122 Milano, Italy. 4. Radiology Department, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Contrada Santa Chiara, 50, 25122 Brescia, Italy. 5. Interventional Radiology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK. 6. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy. 7. Radiology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza Edmondo Malan, 2, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy. 8. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono, 7, 20122 Milano, Italy.
Abstract
(1) Background: the study of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) has a limited role in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), and there is a growing interest in performing unenhanced biparametric prostate-MRI (bpMRI) instead of the conventional multiparametric-MRI (mpMRI). In this study, we aimed to retrospectively compare the performance of the mpMRI, which includes DCE study, and the unenhanced bpMRI, composed of only T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), in PCa detection in men with elevated prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) levels. (2) Methods: a 1.5 T MRI, with an endorectal-coil, was performed on 431 men (aged 61.5 ± 8.3 years) with a PSA ≥4.0 ng/mL. The bpMRI and mpMRI tests were independently assessed in separate sessions by two readers with 5 (R1) and 3 (R2) years of experience. The histopathology or ≥2 years follow-up served as a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated with their 95% CI, and McNemar's and Cohen's κ statistics were used. (3) Results: in 195/431 (45%) of histopathologically proven PCa cases, 62/195 (32%) were high-grade PCa (GS ≥ 7b) and 133/195 (68%) were low-grade PCa (GS ≤ 7a). The PCa could be excluded by histopathology in 58/431 (14%) and by follow-up in 178/431 (41%) of patients. For bpMRI, the sensitivity was 164/195 (84%, 95% CI: 79-89%) for R1 and 156/195 (80%, 95% CI: 74-86%) for R2; while specificity was 182/236 (77%, 95% CI: 72-82%) for R1 and 175/236 (74%, 95% CI: 68-80%) for R2. For mpMRI, sensitivity was 168/195 (86%, 95% CI: 81-91%) for R1 and 160/195 (82%, 95% CI: 77-87%) for R2; while specificity was 184/236 (78%, 95% CI: 73-83%) for R1 and 177/236 (75%, 95% CI: 69-81%) for R2. Interobserver agreement was substantial for both bpMRI (κ = 0.802) and mpMRI (κ = 0.787). (4) Conclusions: the diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI were similar, and no high-grade PCa was missed with bpMRI.
(1) Background: the study of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) has a limited role in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), and there is a growing interest in performing unenhanced biparametric prostate-MRI (bpMRI) instead of the conventional multiparametric-MRI (mpMRI). In this study, we aimed to retrospectively compare the performance of the mpMRI, which includes DCE study, and the unenhanced bpMRI, composed of only T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), in PCa detection in men with elevated prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) levels. (2) Methods: a 1.5 T MRI, with an endorectal-coil, was performed on 431 men (aged 61.5 ± 8.3 years) with a PSA ≥4.0 ng/mL. The bpMRI and mpMRI tests were independently assessed in separate sessions by two readers with 5 (R1) and 3 (R2) years of experience. The histopathology or ≥2 years follow-up served as a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated with their 95% CI, and McNemar's and Cohen's κ statistics were used. (3) Results: in 195/431 (45%) of histopathologically proven PCa cases, 62/195 (32%) were high-grade PCa (GS ≥ 7b) and 133/195 (68%) were low-grade PCa (GS ≤ 7a). The PCa could be excluded by histopathology in 58/431 (14%) and by follow-up in 178/431 (41%) of patients. For bpMRI, the sensitivity was 164/195 (84%, 95% CI: 79-89%) for R1 and 156/195 (80%, 95% CI: 74-86%) for R2; while specificity was 182/236 (77%, 95% CI: 72-82%) for R1 and 175/236 (74%, 95% CI: 68-80%) for R2. For mpMRI, sensitivity was 168/195 (86%, 95% CI: 81-91%) for R1 and 160/195 (82%, 95% CI: 77-87%) for R2; while specificity was 184/236 (78%, 95% CI: 73-83%) for R1 and 177/236 (75%, 95% CI: 69-81%) for R2. Interobserver agreement was substantial for both bpMRI (κ = 0.802) and mpMRI (κ = 0.787). (4) Conclusions: the diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI were similar, and no high-grade PCa was missed with bpMRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms; radiology; sensitivity and specificity
Authors: Thomas De Perrot; Christine Sadjo Zoua; Carl G Glessgen; Diomidis Botsikas; Lena Berchtold; Rares Salomir; Sophie De Seigneux; Harriet C Thoeny; Jean-Paul Vallée Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 4.241