Lesion-based Grading System Using Clinicopathological and MRI Features for Predicting Positive Surgical Margins in Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Abdom Radiol (NY)

Publisher Springer

Date 2025 Jan 27

PMID 39870823

Authors

Honghao Xu

Di Chen

Yuanhao Ma

Xueyi Ning

Xu Bai

Baichuan Liu

Xiaohui Ding

Yun Zhang

Zhe Dong

Mengqiu Cui

Xiaojing Zhang

Aitao Guo

Xuetao Mu

Huiyi Ye

Baojun Wang

Haiyi Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and validate a lesion-based grading system using clinicopathological and MRI features for predicting positive surgical margin (PSM) following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) among prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

Methods: Consecutive MRI examinations of patients undergoing RALP for PCa were retrospectively collected from two medical institutions. Patients from center 1 undergoing RALP between January 2020 and December 2021 were included in the derivation cohort and those between January 2022 and December 2022 were allocated to the validation cohort. Patients from center 2 were assigned to the test cohort. PSM associated imaging and clinicopathological predictors were assessed. A grading system was developed through fixed effect logistic regression and classification and regression tree analysis. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared by Delong test and McNemar test.

Results: A total 489 lesions from 396 patients were included and 82 (29.1%), 32 (35.6%) and 42 (35.9%) of lesions were observed PSM after RALP in the derivation, validation and test cohorts, respectively. The grading system comprised tumor morphology, tumor location, anatomical feature and clinical risk stratification. The grading system demonstrated good prediction performance for PSM in the derivation (AUC 0.82 [95% CI: 0.77, 0.86]), validation (AUC 0.76 [95% CI: 0.66, 0.85]) and test (AUC 0.81 [95% CI: 0.72, 0.88]) cohorts. When compared with Park's model (AUC: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.81]) in the test cohort, our grading system demonstrated significantly higher AUC and specificity (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: The lesion-based grading system can assess the likelihood of PSM after RALP, assisting surgeons in minimizing the occurrence rate of PSM while optimizing functional preservation.

References

Siegel R, Miller K, Wagle N, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023; 73(1):17-48. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21763. View

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G . Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020; 31(9):1119-1134. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011. View

Preisser F, Coxilha G, Heinze A, Oh S, Chun F, Sauter G . Impact of positive surgical margin length and Gleason grade at the margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. Prostate. 2019; 79(16):1832-1836. DOI: 10.1002/pros.23908. View

Mehralivand S, Shih J, Harmon S, Smith C, Bloom J, Czarniecki M . A Grading System for the Assessment of Risk of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer at Multiparametric MRI. Radiology. 2019; 290(3):709-719. PMC: 6394788. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181278. View

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A, Haider M, Padhani A, Villeirs G, Macura K . Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(3):340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. View

Chen J, Chu T, Ghodoussipour S, Bowman S, Patel H, King K . Effect of surgeon experience and bony pelvic dimensions on surgical performance and patient outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2019; 124(5):828-835. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14857. View

Meng S, Chen L, Zhang Q, Wang N, Liu A . Multiparametric MRI-based nomograms in predicting positive surgical margins of prostate cancer after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Front Oncol. 2022; 12:973285. PMC: 9510973. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.973285. View

Quentin M, Schimmoller L, Ullrich T, Valentin B, Demetrescu D, Al-Monajjed R . Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging can predict prostate cancer with risk for positive surgical margins. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022; 47(7):2486-2493. PMC: 9226088. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03543-z. View

10.

Xu L, Zhang G, Zhang D, Zhang J, Zhang X, Bai X . An MRI-based grading system for preoperative risk estimation of positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy. Insights Imaging. 2023; 14(1):178. PMC: 10593712. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-023-01516-4. View

11.

Heetman J, Soeterik T, Wever L, Meyer A, Nuininga J, van Soest R . A side-specific nomogram for extraprostatic extension may reduce the positive surgical margin rate in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2022; 40(12):2919-2924. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04191-0. View

12.

Park M, Park K, Kim M, Kim J . Preoperative MRI-based estimation of risk for positive resection margin after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer: development and validation of a simple scoring system. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(7):4898-4907. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07569-z. View

13.

Gatti M, Faletti R, Gentile F, Soncin E, Calleris G, Fornari A . mEPE-score: a comprehensive grading system for predicting pathologic extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(7):4942-4953. PMC: 9213375. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08595-9. View

14.

Matikainen M, von Bodman C, Secin F, Yunis L, Vora K, Guillonneau B . The depth of the prostatic apex is an independent predictor of positive apical margins at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010; 106(5):622-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09184.x. View

15.

Tian X, Wang Z, Li G, Cao S, Cui H, Li Z . Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting positive surgical margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019; 132(8):928-934. PMC: 6595765. DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000161. View

16.

Onay A, Vural M, Armutlu A, Ozel Yildiz S, Kiremit M, Esen T . Evaluation of the most optimal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging sequence for determining pathological length of capsular contact. Eur J Radiol. 2019; 112:192-199. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.020. View

17.

McEvoy S, Raeside M, Chaim J, Ehdaie B, Akin O . Preoperative Prostate MRI: A Road Map for Surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211(2):383-391. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18757. View

18.

Zhang L, Zhao H, Wu B, Zha Z, Yuan J, Feng Y . Predictive Factors for Positive Surgical Margins in Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Oncol. 2021; 10:539592. PMC: 7897672. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.539592. View

19.

Park K, Kim M, Kim J . Extraprostatic Tumor Extension: Comparison of Preoperative Multiparametric MRI Criteria and Histopathologic Correlation after Radical Prostatectomy. Radiology. 2020; 296(1):87-95. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192133. View