Diagnostic Accuracy of Surface Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 1.5 T for Local Staging of Elevated Risk Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Can Urol Assoc J

Specialty Urology

Date 2010 Aug 10

PMID 20694103

Citations 11

Authors

Brian Kim

Rodney H Breau

Demetri Papadatos

Dean Fergusson

Steve Doucette

Ilias Cagiannos

Chris Morash

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Preoperative prostate cancer stage predicts prognosis and affects treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of surface coil magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer stage using surgical pathologic data as the reference standard.

Methods: High-risk patients (>/=cT3 or PSA >/=20 ng/mL or Gleason >/=8) and selected intermediate-risk patients (clinically bulky disease on exam or biopsy, cT2b/c, or Gleason 7 with >/=3 of 5 biopsy cores positive in a lobe) routinely received a pelvic MRI at our institution. The images of identified patients were reviewed by one radiologist who was blinded to clinical information. The radiologist reported presence or absence of tumour within each lobe of the prostate. Extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle (SV) invasion and pelvic lymph node (PLN) metastasis were also reported. Radiological findings were compared with prostatectomy pathology reports.

Results: During the study period, about 320 radical prostatectomies were performed. Of these, 32 had a preoperative surface coil pelvic MRI adequate for analysis. Pathologically, 53 of 64 (82.8%) prostate lobes contained tumour, 17 (26.6%) lobes had associated EPE, 12 (18.8%) had SV involvement and 7 (10.9%) sets of PLNs contained cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 94.3% and 81.8% for tumour location, 82.4% and 87.2% for EPE, 83.3% and 92.3% for SV invasion and 71.4% and 94.7% for PLN involvement.

Interpretation: Surface coil MRI accurately stages many prostate cancer patients with elevated risk of extraprostatic disease. This mode of imaging may be reasonable at centres that do not have endorectal coil MRI.

Citing Articles

Local staging of prostate cancer with multiparametric-MRI: accuracy and inter-reader agreement.

Popita C, Popita A, Andrei A, Rusu A, Petrut B, Kacso G Med Pharm Rep. 2020; 93(2):150-161.

PMID: 32478321 PMC: 7243891. DOI: 10.15386/mpr-1390.

Accuracy of standard clinical 3T prostate MRI for pelvic lymph node staging: Comparison to Ga-PSMA PET-CT.

Meissner S, Janssen J, Prasad V, Diederichs G, Hamm B, Brenner W Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):10727.

PMID: 31341209 PMC: 6656738. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46386-3.

Utility of preoperative 3 Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion of prostate cancer and its impact on surgical margin status: Experience at a....

Lee T, Hoogenes J, Wright I, Matsumoto E, Shayegan B Can Urol Assoc J. 2017; 11(5):E174-E178.

PMID: 28503230 PMC: 5426937. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4211.

Development and comparison of a Chinese nomogram adding multi-parametric MRI information for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.

Chen Y, Yu W, Fan Y, Zhou L, Yang Y, Wang H Oncotarget. 2016; 8(13):22095-22103.

PMID: 27564265 PMC: 5400649. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11559.

The value of prostate MRI with endorectal coil in detecting seminal vesicle involvement in patients with prostate cancer.

Ghafoori M, Alavi M, Shakiba M, Hoseini K Iran J Radiol. 2015; 12(1):e14556.

PMID: 25793086 PMC: 4349101. DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.14556.

References

Partin A, Kattan M, Subong E, Walsh P, Wojno K, Oesterling J . Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA. 1997; 277(18):1445-51. View

Jemal A, Tiwari R, Murray T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E . Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004; 54(1):8-29. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.54.1.8. View

Engelbrecht M, Huisman H, Laheij R, Jager G, van Leenders G, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C . Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003; 229(1):248-54. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2291020200. View

Allen D, Hindley R, Clovis S, ODonnell P, Cahill D, Rottenberg G . Does body-coil magnetic-resonance imaging have a role in the preoperative staging of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer?. BJU Int. 2004; 94(4):534-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05023.x. View

Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen H, Eberhardt S, Kattan M, Scardino P . Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology. 2004; 232(1):133-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2321031086. View

Rifkin M, Zerhouni E, Gatsonis C, Quint L, Paushter D, Epstein J . Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990; 323(10):621-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199009063231001. View

Kirkham A, Emberton M, Allen C . How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate?. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(6):1163-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.025. View

Hovels A, Heesakkers R, Adang E, Jager G, Strum S, Hoogeveen Y . The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63(4):387-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022. View

Yu K, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff D, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek C . Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology. 1997; 202(3):697-702. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051019. View

10.

Jager G, Ruijter E, Van De Kaa C, de la Rosette J, Oosterhof G, THORNBURY J . Dynamic TurboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. Radiology. 1997; 203(3):645-52. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169683. View

11.

Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz C, Kuroiwa K, Ishill N, Pucar D . Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2006; 239(3):784-92. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2392050949. View

12.

Wefer A, Wefer J, Frericks B, Truss M, Galanski M . Advances in uroradiological imaging. BJU Int. 2002; 89(5):477-87; Quiz i-iii. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02620.x. View

13.

Coakley F, Qayyum A, Kurhanewicz J . Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003; 170(6 Pt 2):S69-75. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000094958.23276.c4. View

14.

Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, Chun F, Schlom T . Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006; 175(3 Pt 1):939-44. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00342-3. View

15.

Bezzi M, Kressel H, ALLEN K, Schiebler M, Altman H, Wein A . Prostatic carcinoma: staging with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1988; 169(2):339-46. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.169.2.3174982. View

16.

Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron D, Yu K, Sokolov D, Huang L . Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging--clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 1999; 213(2):473-80. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv23473. View

17.

Pauker S, Kassirer J . The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980; 302(20):1109-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003. View

18.

Hricak H, Choyke P, Eberhardt S, Leibel S, Scardino P . Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007; 243(1):28-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2431030580. View

19.

Engelbrecht M, Jager G, Laheij R, Verbeek A, van Lier H, Barentsz J . Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12(9):2294-302. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1389-z. View

20.

Kattan M, Eastham J, Wheeler T, Maru N, Scardino P, Erbersdobler A . Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol. 2003; 170(5):1792-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000091806.70171.41. View