» Articles » PMID: 24055430

The Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI in Men with Negative Biopsy and Elevated PSA Level--can It Rule out Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Overview
Journal Urol Oncol
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2013 Sep 24
PMID 24055430
Citations 55
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To assess the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in patients with previous negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy.

Materials And Methods: Fifty-four patients with at least 1 previous negative TRUS prostate biopsy underwent mp-MRI in the form of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. This was followed by transperineal template systematic prostate biopsies. Analysis was done based on 2 sectors per prostate, right and left (108 sectors out of 54 prostates). mp-MRI was scored using an ordinal scale 1 to 5 based on the suspicion of the presence of clinically significant disease. We used 6 different definitions for clinically significant disease and tested the performance of mp-MRI at each single definition.

Results: Median age was 64 (range, 39-75), median PSA level was 10 (range, 2-23), and median number of biopsies was 45 (range, 21-137). Cancer of any volume and any grade was detected in 34 of 54 (63%) patients. mp-MRI accuracy at detection of clinically significant cancer using University College London (UCL) definition 2 (any Gleason score of 4 or maximum cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm or both) showed sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 42%, positive predictive value of 38%, and negative predictive value of 79%. For a different definition of significant tumor (UCL definition 1; dominant Gleason score 4 or maximum cancer core length ≥ 6 mm or both), the sensitivity was 90%, specificity 42%, positive predictive value 26%, and negative predictive value 95%.

Conclusions: mp-MRI showed good performance at both detection and ruling out clinically significant disease, according to the definition used. mp-MRI can then be used as a triage test in the population with persistently elevated or rising PSA levels to select patients that can avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy.

Citing Articles

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting.

Tay J, Chow K, Gavin D, Mertens E, Howard N, Thomas B BJUI Compass. 2022; 2(6):377-384.

PMID: 35474704 PMC: 8988779. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.99.


A protocol for the VISION study: An indiVidual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing MRI-targeted biopsy to standard transrectal ultraSound guided bIopsy in the detection of prOstate cancer.

Kasivisvanathan V, Wai-Shun Chan V, Clement K, Levis B, Haider M, Agarwal R PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0263345.

PMID: 35113918 PMC: 8812968. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263345.


Focal Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Correlative Pathological and Radiographic-Based Treatment Planning.

Fredman E, Traughber B, Kharouta M, Podder T, Lo S, Ponsky L Front Oncol. 2021; 11:744130.

PMID: 34604088 PMC: 8480263. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.744130.


MRI and Targeted Biopsy Essential Tools for an Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment Decision Making in Prostate Cancer.

Samtani S, Burotto M, Roman J, Cortes-Herrera D, Walton-Diaz A Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(9).

PMID: 34573893 PMC: 8466276. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091551.


Which Prostate Cancers are Undetected by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Previous Prostate Biopsy? An Analysis from the PICTURE Study.

Norris J, Simmons L, Kanthabalan A, Freeman A, McCartan N, Moore C Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 30:16-24.

PMID: 34337543 PMC: 8277581. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.06.003.


References
1.
Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N . Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding--multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011; 259(1):162-72. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101251. View

2.
Bittner N, Merrick G, Butler W, Bennett A, Galbreath R . Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol. 2013; 190(2):509-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.021. View

3.
Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-57. PMC: 3297750. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. View

4.
Ahmed H, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A . Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2011; 186(2):458-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.147. View

5.
Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L . Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006; 176(6 Pt 1):2432-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007. View