Prostate Multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) Accuracy for Localization of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Study between MRI and Whole-mount Histopathology

Rui Caceiro; Vasco Quaresma; Luis Curvo Semedo; Carlos Faria; Lorenzo Marconi; Arnaldo  Figueiredo

doi:10.24915/aup.198

Authors

Rui Caceiro Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2603-7691
Vasco Quaresma Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Luis Curvo Semedo Medical Imaging Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Carlos Faria Anatomopathology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Lorenzo Marconi Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Arnaldo Figueiredo Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.198

Keywords:

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis, Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging

Abstract

Introduction: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly used to guide prostate cancer management. Most studies are focusing on the detection of prostate cancer rather than localization of tumors within the gland, which is fundamental to plan treatment. We aimed to evaluate mpMRI for accurate localization of tumor nodules and examining the predictors of detection.
Methods: Retrospective study of 30 prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent mp-MRI before radical prostatectomy (RP). Suspicious lesions on mpMRI were localized using a standardized prostate map of 24 regions of interest (ROI) and compared with whole-mount histopathology.
Results: Seven hundred and twenty ROIs were evaluated and 160 had clinically significant PCa (lesions ≥5 mm or Gleason ≥6). Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of PCa on hemiprostates was 82% and 80%. PCa mapping was less sensitive for octants - 52%, but specificity was higher, at 95.9%. mpMRI had better performance for Gleason >7 and tumor dimension ≥ 1cm. MRI correctly identified the location of 80% of index lesions. The extracapsular invasion was correctly detected in 90% of patients. Tumor volume had a strong correlation between mpMRI and RP analysis, with an approximate 10% underestimation of tumor dimensions. (rho =0.73; <0.001).
Conclusion: mpMRI is capable of accurate localization of clinically significant PCa within whole mount prostate, with moderate sensitivity and good specificity. mpMRI performance increases with ISUP ≥ 3 and size ≥ 1 cm. Extracapsular invasion detection and high sensitivity of hemiprostatic localization make this exam vastly relevant for nerve-sparing treatment planning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Rui Caceiro, Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal

Vasco Quaresma, Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Luis Curvo Semedo, Medical Imaging Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Carlos Faria, Anatomopathology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Lorenzo Marconi, Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Arnaldo Figueiredo, Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

References

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7–33. doi:10.3322/caac.21654

Chamie K, Sonn GA, Finley DS, Tan N, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:369–75. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.045

Cheng GC, Chen MH, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schnall MD, Tomaszewski JE, et al. Clinical utility of endorectal MRI in determining PSA outcome for patients with biopsy Gleason score 7, PSA = 10, and clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:64–70. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03820-8

McClure TD, Margolis DJA, Reiter RE, Sayre JW, Thomas MA, Nagarajan R, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic‑assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology. 2012;262:874–83. doi:10.1148/radiol.11103504

Pokorny MR, De Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound‑guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR‑guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:22–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002

Siddiqui MM, Rais‑Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound‑fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12‑core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:713–9. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059

Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, van Basten JP, Hulsbergen‑van de Kaa CA, Vreuls W, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:1728–34. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021

Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance‑ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate‑specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65:809–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025

Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, Logan J, Rais‑Bahrami S, Walton‑Diaz A, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:3359–66. doi:10.1002/cncr.28216

Zhen L, Liu X, Yegang C, Yongjiao Y, Yawei X, Jiaqi K, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:1244. doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6434-2

Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1019–24. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050

Isebaert S, Van Den Bergh L, Haustermans K, Joniau S, Lerut E, De Wever L, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole‑mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:1392–401. doi:10.1002/jmri.23938

Yokoo P, de Oliveira Salvador GL, Castillo JJ, Basso AC, Amaral RS, de Campos ROP, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system correlation with Gleason score: Pathological aspects of magnetic resonance imaging findings. Urol J. 2019;86:189–96. doi:10.1177/0391560319858482

Wibulpolprasert P, Raman SS, Hsu W, Margolis DJ, Asvadi NH, Khoshnoodi P, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer at 3‑T multiparametric MRI using PI‑RADS segmentation. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212:W122–31. doi:10.2214/AJR.18.20113

Chun FKH, Briganti A, Jeldres C, Gallina A, Erbersdobler A, Schlomm T, et al. Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:536–43. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.018

Chung BI, Tarin TV, Ferrari M, Brooks JD. Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer‑specific survival. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2011;29:314–8. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.06.017

Fukuhara H, Kume H, Suzuki M, Fujimura T, Enomoto Y, Nishimatsu H, et al. Maximum tumor diameter: A simple independent predictor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:244–7. doi:10.1038/pcan.2010.17

Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, Wells N, Farnham SB, Smith JA Jr, et al. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate‑specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006;97:1169–72. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06148.x

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI‑RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

Stensland KD, Coutinho K, Hobbs AR, Haines L, Collingwood SA, Kwon YS, et al. Are magnetic resonance imaging undetectable prostate tumours clinically significant? Results of histopathological analyses. Arab J Urol. 2016;14:256–61. doi:10.1016/j.aju.2016.09.003

Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, Mukai M, Horiguchi Y, Nakagawa K, et al. Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology. 2004;64:101–5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.036

Le Nobin J, Orczyk C, Deng FM, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, et al. Prostate tumour volumes: Evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co‑registration software. BJU Int. 2014;114:E105–12. doi:10.1111/bju.12750

de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta‑analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:233–45. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029