» Articles » PMID: 24126797

Performance of Multiparametric MRI in Men at Risk of Prostate Cancer Before the First Biopsy: a Paired Validating Cohort Study Using Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies As the Reference Standard

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Urology
Date 2013 Oct 16
PMID 24126797
Citations 46
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to serve as a non-invasive triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine the performance characteristics of mpMRI in men at risk before the first biopsy using 5 mm template prostate mapping (TPM) as the reference standard.

Methods: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ≥3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ≥4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ≥4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ≥4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance.

Results: One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed 'any cancer' and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41-82), 5.8 ng ml(-1) (1.2-20), 40 ml (16-137) and 41 cores (20-93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88-99%), 23% (17-29%), 34% (28-40%), 89% (79-98%) and 0.72 (0.65-0.79), respectively.

Conclusions: MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.

Citing Articles

Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience.

Wang L, Luo Y, Liu T, Deng M, Huang X Int Urol Nephrol. 2023; 55(7):1659-1664.

PMID: 37171702 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03631-z.


Pathological Accuracy in Prostate Cancer: Single-Center Outcomes of 3 Different Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Techniques and Random Systematic Biopsy.

Kilic M, Acar O, Vural M, Colakoglu B, Cil B, Koseoglu E Turk J Urol. 2022; 48(5):346-353.

PMID: 36197141 PMC: 9623377. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2022.22165.


Frozen section utilization to omit systematic biopsy in diagnosing high risk prostate cancer.

Tae J, Jin H, Noh T, Shim J, Kang S, Cheon J Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):14461.

PMID: 36002475 PMC: 9402539. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18186-9.


Beyond Prostate Specific Antigen: New Prostate Cancer Screening Options.

Narain T, Sooriakumaran P World J Mens Health. 2022; 40(1):66-73.

PMID: 34983086 PMC: 8761236. DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.210076.


Quantifying the Effect of Location Matching on Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prior to Prostate Biopsy-A Multicentre Study.

Gavin D, Kam J, Krelle M, Louie-Johnsun M, Sutherland T, Koschel S Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 20:28-36.

PMID: 34337456 PMC: 8317842. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.07.001.


References
1.
Wolters T, Roobol M, van Leeuwen P, van den Bergh R, Hoedemaeker R, van Leenders G . A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol. 2010; 185(1):121-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.082. View

2.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad A, Bernardo M, Pohida T . Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011; 186(5):1818-24. PMC: 5540658. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013. View

3.
Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S . Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 25(1):146-52. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20793. View

4.
Ahmed H, Kirkham A, Arya M, Illing R, Freeman A, Allen C . Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009; 6(4):197-206. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.18. View

5.
Epstein J, Allsbrook Jr W, Amin M, Egevad L . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(9):1228-42. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1. View