The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer
- PMID: 24468511
- PMCID: PMC3922632
- DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.045
The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging might improve the identification of patients with higher risk disease at diagnosis and thereby reduce the incidence of undergrading or understaging.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 115 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. We used Epstein's criteria of insignificant disease with and without a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameter (apparent diffusion coefficient) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, as well as negative and positive predictive values [NPV and PPV] across varying definitions of clinically significant cancer based on Gleason grade and tumor volume (0.2 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.3 mL) on whole-mount prostate specimens. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the incremental benefit of MRI in delineating significant cancer.
Results: The majority had a prostate-specific antigen from 4.1-10.0 (67%), normal rectal examinations (90%), biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 (68%), and ≤ 2 cores positive (55%). Of the 58 patients pathologically staged with Gleason 7 or pT3 disease at prostatectomy, Epstein's criteria alone missed 12 patients (sensitivity of 79% and NPV of 68%). Addition of apparent diffusion coefficient improved the sensitivity and NPV for predicting significant disease at prostatectomy to 93% and 84%, respectively. MRI improved detection of large Gleason 6 (≥ 1.3 mL, P = .006) or Gleason ≥ 7 lesions of any size (P <.001).
Conclusion: Integration of MRI with existing clinical staging criteria helps identify patients with significant cancer. Clinicians should consider utilizing MRI in the decision-making process.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Editorial comment.Urology. 2014 Feb;83(2):375. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.046. Urology. 2014. PMID: 24468512 No abstract available.
References
-
- Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K, et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;174:2158–2163. - PubMed
-
- Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, et al. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:1054–1058. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical