Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Risk Group Stratification of Prostate Adenocarcinoma

Overview

Journal Adv Radiat Oncol

Specialty Oncology

Date 2024 May 7

PMID 38711959

Authors

Benjamin T Bonebrake

Elsa Parr

Linda My Huynh

Brendan Coutu

Neil Hansen

Benjamin Teply

Charles Enke

Chad Lagrange

Michael Baine

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to further assess the clinical utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in prostate cancer (PC) staging following 2023 clinical guideline changes, both as an independent predictor of high-stage (>T3a) or high-risk PC and when combined with patient characteristics.

Methods And Materials: The present study was a retrospective review of 171 patients from 2008 to 2018 who underwent MP-MRI before radical prostatectomy at a single institution. The accuracy of clinical staging was compared between conventional staging and MP-MRI-based clinical staging. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were compared, and receiver operating characteristic curves were generated. Linear regression analyses were used to calculate concordance (C-statistic).

Results: Of the 171 patients, final pathology revealed 95 (55.6%) with T2 disease, 62 (36.3%) with T3a disease, and 14 (8.2%) with T3b disease. Compared with conventional staging, MP-MRI-based staging demonstrated significantly increased accuracy in identifying T3a disease, intermediate risk, and high/very-high-risk PC. When combined with clinical characteristics, MP-MRI-based staging improved the area under the curve from 0.753 to 0.808 ( = .0175), compared with conventional staging.

Conclusions: MP-MRI improved the identification of T3a PC, intermediate-risk PC, and high- or very-high-risk PC. Further, when combined with clinical characteristics, MP-MRI-based staging significantly improved risk stratification, compared with conventional staging. These findings represent further evidence to support the integration of MP-MRI into prostate adenocarcinoma clinical staging guidelines.

References

Turkbey B, Brown A, Sankineni S, Wood B, Pinto P, Choyke P . Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 66(4):326-36. PMC: 7511979. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21333. View

Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View

de Rooij M, Hamoen E, Witjes J, Barentsz J, Rovers M . Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 70(2):233-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029. View

Bakavicius A, Drevinskaite M, Daniunaite K, Barisiene M, Jarmalaite S, Jankevicius F . The Impact of Prostate Cancer Upgrading and Upstaging on Biochemical Recurrence and Cancer-Specific Survival. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020; 56(2). PMC: 7074013. DOI: 10.3390/medicina56020061. View

Ahdoot M, Wilbur A, Reese S, Lebastchi A, Mehralivand S, Gomella P . MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(10):917-928. PMC: 7323919. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038. View

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko A, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse L, Vaarala M . MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(19):1767-1777. PMC: 9084630. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. View

Mohler J, Antonarakis E, Armstrong A, DAmico A, Davis B, Dorff T . Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17(5):479-505. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023. View

DeLong E, Delong D, Clarke-Pearson D . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. View

Rayn K, Bloom J, Gold S, Hale G, Baiocco J, Mehralivand S . Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2018; 200(5):1041-1047. PMC: 7983159. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.094. View

10.

Weinreb J, Barentsz J, Choyke P, Cornud F, Haider M, Macura K . PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(1):16-40. PMC: 6467207. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. View

11.

Feng T, Sharif-Afshar A, Wu J, Li Q, Luthringer D, Saouaf R . Multiparametric MRI Improves Accuracy of Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Extracapsular Extension of Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2015; 86(2):332-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.003. View

12.

Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C, Roosen A . Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice. World J Urol. 2014; 33(7):923-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1448-5. View

13.

Kim S, Lee W . Does McNemar's test compare the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic tests?. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014; 26(1):142-154. DOI: 10.1177/0962280214541852. View

14.

Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, Hope T, Hofman M, Rischpler C . F-fluciclovine PET-CT and Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(9):1286-1294. PMC: 7469487. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2. View

15.

Mottaghy F, Heinzel A, Verburg F . Molecular imaging using PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for initial staging of prostate cancer: comparing apples with oranges?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43(8):1397-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3389-2. View

16.

Amin M, Greene F, Edge S, Compton C, Gershenwald J, Brookland R . The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67(2):93-99. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21388. View