Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 4;5(9):865-873.
doi: 10.1002/bco2.415. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Utility of dynamic contrast enhancement for clinically significant prostate cancer detection

Affiliations

Utility of dynamic contrast enhancement for clinically significant prostate cancer detection

Eric V Li et al. BJUI Compass. .

Erratum in

  • Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] BJUI Compass. 2024 Dec 30;5(12):1324-1329. doi: 10.1002/bco2.482. eCollection 2024 Dec. BJUI Compass. 2024. PMID: 39744071 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the association of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason Grade Group ≥2) and compare biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) nomograms.

Subjects/patients and methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of biopsy naïve patients who underwent pre-biopsy MRI separated by individual MRI series from 2018 to 2022. csPCa detection rates were calculated for patients with peripheral zone (PZ) lesions scored 3-5 on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with available DCE (annotated as - or +). bpMRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) (3 = 3-, 3+; 4 = 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) and mpMRI PIRADS (3 = 3-; 4 = 3+, 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) approaches were compared in multivariable logistic regression models. Nomograms for detection of csPCa and ≥GG3 PCa incorporating all biopsy naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI were generated based on available serum biomarkers [PHI, % free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or total PSA] and validated with an independent cohort.

Results: Patients (n = 1010) with highest PIRADS lesion in PZ were included in initial analysis with 127 (12.6%) classified as PIRADS 3+ (PIRADS 3 on bpMRI but PIRADS 4 on mpMRI). On multivariable analysis, PIRADS 3+ lesions were associated with higher csPCa rates compared to PIRADS 3- (3+ vs. 3-: OR 1.86, p = 0.024), but lower csPCa rates compared to PIRADS DWI 4 lesions (4 vs. 3+: OR 2.39, p < 0.001). csPCa rates were 19% (3-), 31% (3+), 41.5% (4-), 65.9% (4+), 62.5% (5-), and 92.3% (5+). bpMRI nomograms were non-inferior to mpMRI nomograms in the development (n = 1410) and independent validation (n = 353) cohorts. Risk calculators available at: https://rossnm1.shinyapps.io/MynMRIskCalculator/.

Conclusion: While DCE positivity by itself was associated with csPCa among patients with highest PIRADS lesions in the PZ, nomogram comparisons suggest that there is no significant difference in performance of bpMRI and mpMRI. bpMRI may be considered as an alternative to mpMRI for prostate cancer evaluation in many situations.

Keywords: diagnosis; dynamic contrast enhancement; nomogram; prostate MRI; prostate cancer; risk stratification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

EMS is a consultant for Atria Academy of Science and Medicine, Early Medical, Lantheus, Pfizer, and PinnacleCare Health Advisors. AER is a consultant for Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, BillionToOne, Janssen Biotech, Lantheus, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Veracyte. These relationships are not related to the contents of this manuscript.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Categorization of (A) peripheral zone and transitional zone lesions with PI‐RADS v2.1 and (B) detection of csPCa by DWI score and full DCE stratification.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Representative MRI images of (A) PIRADS 3− with negative biopsy, (B) PIRADS 3+ with GG2 PCa on biopsy, (C) PIRADS 4− with negative biopsy, and (D) PIRADS 4+ with GG3 PCa on biopsy.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] BJUI Compass. 2024 Dec 30;5(12):1324-1329. doi: 10.1002/bco2.482. eCollection 2024 Dec. BJUI Compass. 2024. PMID: 39744071 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Ahmed HU, el‐Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‐parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI‐targeted or standard biopsy for prostate‐cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–1777. 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui MR, Ansbro B, Shah PV, Aguiar JA, Li EV, Rich JM, et al. Real‐world use of MRI for risk stratification prior to prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;26(2):353–359. 10.1038/s41391-022-00543-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):12–49. 10.3322/caac.21820 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brant A, Wu X, Prunty M, Margolis DJ, Bittencourt LK, Shoag JE, et al. Variability of prostate MRI charges among U.S. hospital‐based facilities. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023;1–2. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources