» Articles » PMID: 22952382

Performance Characteristics of MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Clinically Low-risk Prostate Cancer: a Prospective Study

Overview
Journal Radiology
Specialty Radiology
Date 2012 Sep 7
PMID 22952382
Citations 35
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate diagnostic performance of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in detecting lesions stratified by pathologic volume and Gleason score in men with clinically determined low-risk prostate cancer.

Materials And Methods: The institutional review board approved this prospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Written informed consent was obtained from 183 men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-cT2a, Gleason score≤6 at biopsy, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level<10 ng/mL [10 μg/L]) undergoing MR imaging before prostatectomy. By using a scale of 1-5 (score 1, definitely no tumor; score 5, definitely tumor), two radiologists independently scored likelihood of tumor per sextant on T2-weighted images. Two spectroscopists jointly recorded locations of lesions with metabolic features consistent with tumor on MR spectroscopic images. Whole-mount step-section histopathologic analysis constituted the reference standard. Diagnostic performance at sextant level (T2-weighted imaging) and detection sensitivities (T2-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging) for lesions of 0.5 cm3 or larger were calculated.

Results: For T2-weighted imaging, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for sextant-level detection were 0.77 (reader 1) and 0.82 (reader 2). For lesions of ≥0.5 cm3 and, 1<cm3, sensitivities were significantly lower when the lesion Gleason score was ≤6 (0.44 [reader 1] and 0.61 [reader 2]) rather than when the Gleason score was ≥7 (0.73, P=.02 [reader 1]; and 0.84, P=.05 [reader 2]). For lesions of ≥1 cm3, lesion Gleason score did not significantly affect sensitivity (0.83 [reader 1] and 1.00 [reader 2] for Gleason score≤6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score≥7; P≥.07). MR spectroscopic imaging sensitivity was low and was not significantly affected by pathologic lesion volume or Gleason score.

Conclusion: In men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, detection of lesions of <1 cm3 with T2-weighted imaging is significantly dependent on lesion Gleason score; detection of lesions of ≥1 cm3 is significantly better than detection of smaller lesions and is not affected by lesion Gleason score. The role of MR spectroscopic imaging alone in this population is limited.

Citing Articles

Comparison of model-based versus deep learning-based image reconstruction for thin-slice T2-weighted spin-echo prostate MRI.

Riederer S, Borisch E, Froemming A, Kawashima A, Takahashi N Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 49(8):2921-2931.

PMID: 38520510 PMC: 11300170. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04256-1.


Advanced strain elastography is a reliable approach for prostate cancer detection in patients with elevated PSA levels.

Almalki Y, Mansour M, Ali S, Basha M, Abdelkawi M, Alduraibi S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2917.

PMID: 38316992 PMC: 10844258. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53440-2.


Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy.

Park J, Kim C Korean J Radiol. 2022; 23(6):625-637.

PMID: 35555886 PMC: 9174506. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0059.


Risk Factors for Pathologically Confirmed Lymph Nodes Metastasis in Patients With Clinical T2N0M0 Stage Prostate Cancer.

Xu N, Ke Z, Chen Y, Wu Y, Chen S, Wei Y Front Oncol. 2020; 10:1547.

PMID: 32923401 PMC: 7456999. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01547.


Biologic Significance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Invisibility in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Salami S, Kaplan J, Nallandhighal S, Takhar M, Tosoian J, Lee M JCO Precis Oncol. 2020; 3.

PMID: 32914029 PMC: 7446477. DOI: 10.1200/PO.19.00054.


References
1.
Turkbey B, Shah V, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J . Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?. Radiology. 2010; 258(2):488-95. PMC: 3029887. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100667. View

2.
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A . Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 28(1):126-31. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180. View

3.
Stamey T, Caldwell M, McNeal J, Nolley R, Hemenez M, Downs J . The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years?. J Urol. 2004; 172(4 Pt 1):1297-301. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000139993.51181.5d. View

4.
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

5.
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