Purpose: To assess the added value of histological information for local staging of prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing the accuracy of multiparametric MRI alone (mpMRI) and mpMRI with biopsy Gleason grade (mpMRI+Bx). Methods: 133 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative 3T-MRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy for PCa were included in this single-centre retrospective study. mpMRI imaging was reviewed independently by two uroradiologists for the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) on a 5-point Likert scale. For second reads, the radiologists received results of targeted fused MR/US biopsy (mpMRI+Bx) prior to re-staging. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 58-67 years) and median PSA was 6.5 ng/mL (IQR 5.0-10.0 ng/mL). Extracapsular extension was present in 85/133 (63.9%) patients and SVI was present in 22/133 (16.5%) patients. For ECE prediction, mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 63.5% and 81.3%, respectively, compared to 77.7% and 81.3% achieved by mpMRI+Bx. At an optimal cut-off value of Likert score ≥ 3, areas under the curves (AUCs) was .85 for mpMRI+Bx and .78 for mpMRI, P < .01. For SVI prediction, AUC was .95 for mpMRI+Bx compared to .92 for mpMRI; P = .20. Inter-reader agreement for ECE and SVI prediction was substantial for mpMRI (k range, .78-.79) and mpMRI+Bx (k range, .74-.79). Conclusions: MpMRI+Bx showed superior diagnostic performance with an increased sensitivity for ECE prediction but no significant difference for SVI prediction. Inter-reader agreement was substantial for both protocols. Integration of biopsy information adds value when staging prostate mpMRI.
GodoyGTareenBULeporH. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009;104:1610-1614.
2.
EpsteinJIPartinAWPotterSRWalshPC. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: Prognostic stratification based on pathologic parameters. Urology. 2000;56:283-288.
3.
CoakleyFVOtoAAlexanderLF, et al.ACR appropriateness criteria prostate cancer-pretreatment detection, surveillance, and staging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:S245-S257.
4.
MottetNBellmuntJBollaM, et al.EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-629.
5.
CaglicIKovacVBarrettT. Multiparametric MRI–Local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol. 2019;53:159-170.
6.
WeinrebJCBarentszJOChoykePL, et al.PI-RADS prostate imaging–Reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16-40.
7.
MorlaccoASharmaVViersBR, et al.The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer staging before radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:701-704.
8.
MottetNvan den BerghRCNBriersE, et al.EAU–ESTRO–ESUR–SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2018. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2018 ed.Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2018.
9.
de RooijMHamoenEHJWitjesJABarentszJORoversMM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:233-245.
10.
TurkbeyBRosenkrantzABHaiderMA, et al.Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340-351.
11.
BarrettTRajeshARosenkrantzABChoykePLTurkbeyB. PI-RADS version 2.1: One small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019;74:841-852.
12.
JäderlingFAkreOAlyM, et al.Preoperative staging using magnetic resonance imaging and risk of positive surgical margins after prostate-cancer surgery. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22:391-398.
13.
BarrettTSloughRSushentsevN, et al.Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways. Clin Radiol. 2019;74:894e1-894.e9.
14.
CaglicIPovalej BrzanPWarrenAYBrattOShahNBarrettT. Defining the incremental value of 3D T2-weighted imaging in the assessment of prostate cancer extracapsular extension. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:5488-5497.
15.
MatsuokaYIshiokaJTanakaH, et al.Impact of the prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, on MRI diagnosis for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:W76-W84.
16.
BakirBOnayAVuralMArmutluAYıldızSÖEsenT. Can extraprostatic extension be predicted by tumor-capsule contact length in prostate cancer? Relationship with international society of urological pathology grade groups. Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:588-596.
17.
Nyarangi-DixJWiesenfarthMBonekampD, et al.Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the prediction of extraprostatic disease-a risk model for patient-tailored risk stratification when planning radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:1205-1212.
18.
OhoriMKattanMWKohH, et al.Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;171:1844-1849.
19.
PadhaniARPetraliaG. Radiologists should integrate clinical risk factors with MRI findings for meaningful prostate cancer staging. Radiology. 2020;296:96-97.
20.
de RooijMIsraëlBTummersM, et al.ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:5404-5416.
21.
BarrettTPadhaniARPatelA, et al.Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: Recommendations of a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2020;127:304-306.
22.
KuruTHWadhwaKChangRT, et al.Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: A standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for enhanced prostate diagnostics. BJU Int. 2013;112:568-577.
23.
ZawaidehJPSalaEShaidaN, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol2020;30:4039-4049.
24.
van LeendersGJLHvan der KwastTHIczkowskiKA. The 2019 international society of urological pathology consensus conference on prostate cancer grading. Eur Urol. 2020;44:87-99.
25.
BallMWPartinAWEpsteinJI. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: Evidence for further PT3 subclassification. Urology. 2015;85:161-164.
26.
BerneyDMWheelerTMWheelerTM, et al.International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: Seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:39-47.
27.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
28.
BarrettTTannerJGillABSloughRAWasonJGallagherFA. The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on seminal vesicle fluid volume and whole-prostate ADC as measured on prostate MRI. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:5236-5243.
29.
CaglicISushentsevNShahNWarrenAYLambBWBarrettT. Comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI for the detection of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in biopsy naïve patients. Eur J Radiol. 2021;141:109804.
30.
MehralivandSShihJHHarmonS, et al.A grading system for the assessment of risk of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI. Radiology. 2019;290:709-719.
31.
EiflerJBFengZLinBM, et al.An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111:22-29.
32.
SoukupTPetridesKVLambBW, et al.The anatomy of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer meetings. Medicine. 2016;95:e3885.
33.
ShamashJAnsellWAlifrangisC, et al.The impact of a supranetwork-multidisciplinary team (SMDT) on decision making in testicular cancers: A ten-year overview of the anglian germ cell cancer collaborative group (AGCCCG). Eur Urol Suppl. 2019;18:33.
34.
LambBWBrownKFNagpalKVincentCGreenJSASevdalisN. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: A systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2116-2125.
35.
GnanapragasamVJBarrettTThankapannairV, et al.Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;124:758-767.
36.
CaglicISushentsevNGnanapragasamVJ, et al.MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Eur Radiol. 2020;31:2696-2705.
37.
BarentszJORichenbergJClementsR, et al.ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746-757.
38.
ShortEWarrenAYVarmaM. Gleason grading of prostate cancer: A pragmatic approach. Diagn Histopathol. 2019;25:371-378.
39.
CalioBPSidanaASuganoD, et al.Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology-does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help?J Urol. 2018;199:976-982.
40.
LeJDStephensonSBruggerM, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014;192:1367-1373.
41.
DiamandROderdaMAl Hajj ObeidW, et al.A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: Comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2019;37:2109-2117.
42.
MartiniAGuptaALewisSC, et al.Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:1025-1033.
43.
RaynKNBloomJBGoldSA, et al.Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to clinical nomograms for predicting adverse pathology in prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;200:1041-1047.
44.
PadhaniARPetraliaGSanguedolceF. Finding minimal extraprostatic disease: Who cares?Eur Urol. 2016;70:246-247.
45.
ParkKJKimMKimJK. Extraprostatic tumor extension: Comparison of preoperative multiparametric MRI criteria and histopathologic correlation after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2020;296:87-95.
46.
ThurtleDBarrettTThankappan-NairV, et al.Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int2018;122:59-65.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
