Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 9/2020

01-09-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Oncology

Independent external validation of nomogram to predict extracapsular extension in patients with prostate cancer

Authors: Joao Ricardo Alves, Valdair F. Muglia, Fabiano R. Lucchesi, Raisa A. O. G. Faria, Cinthia Alcantara-Quispe, Vinicius L. Vazquez, Rodolfo B. Reis, Eliney F. Faria

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

The objective of this study was to perform an independent external validation of the Giganti-Coppola nomogram (GCN), which uses clinical and radiological parameters to predict prostate extracapsular extension (ECE) on the final pathology of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

Material and methods

Seventy-two patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa), who were RP candidates from two institutions, were prospectively included. All patients underwent preoperative multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 1.5 T, without the use of an endorectal coil, with multiplanar images in T1WI, T2WI, DWI, and DCE. The AUC and a calibration graph were used to validate the nomogram, using the regression coefficients of the Giganti-Coppola study.

Results

The original nomogram had an AUC of 0.90 (p = 0.001), with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 100%, 5.1%, 47.1%, 100%, and 48%, respectively. The calibration graph showed an overestimation of the nomogram for ECE.

Conclusion

The GCN has an adequate ability in predicting ECE; however, in our sample, it showed limited accuracy and overestimated likelihood of ECE in the final pathology of patients with PCa submitted to RP.

Key Points

• Knowledge of preoperative local staging of prostate cancer is essential for surgical treatment. Extracapsular extension increases the chance of positive surgical margins.
• Imaging modalities such as mpMRI alone does not have suitable accuracy in local staging.
• Giganti-Coppola’s nomogram achieved an adequate ability in predicting ECE.
Literature
1.
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr et al (2007) Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 178(2):493–499 discussion 9
2.
Zhang L, Wu B, Zha Z et al (2018) Surgical margin status and its impact on prostate cancer prognosis after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Urol 6(11):1803–1815
3.
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277(18):1445–1451
4.
Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H et al (2004) Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 171(5):1844–1849 discussion 9
5.
Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, Hernandez AD, Rose SC, Egger MJ (1997) Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 157(3):902–906PubMedCrossRef
6.
Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A et al (2006) Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):939–944 discussion 44
7.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40
8.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777
9.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(2):233–245PubMedCrossRef
10.
Giganti F, Coppola A, Ambrosi A et al (2016) Apparent diffusion coefficient in the evaluation of side-specific extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: development and external validation of a nomogram of clinical use. Urol Oncol 34(7):291 e9–291e17
11.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252
12.
Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L et al (2011) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 24(1):6–15
13.
Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al (2017) 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 67(2):93–99
14.
Sayyid R, Perlis N, Ahmad A et al (2017) Development and external validation of a biopsy-derived nomogram to predict risk of ipsilateral extraprostatic extension. BJU Int 120(1):76–82
15.
Crippa A, Srougi M, Dall’Oglio MF et al (2006) A new nomogram to predict pathologic outcome following radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 32(2):155–164
16.
Collins GS, de Groot JA, Dutton S et al (2014) External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:40
17.
Moons KG, Kengne AP, Grobbee DE et al (2012) Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment. Heart 98(9):691–698
18.
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Br J Surg 102(3):148–158PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lughezzani G, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI et al (2010) Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 58(5):687–700
20.
Augustin H, Fritz GA, Ehammer T, Auprich M, Pummer K (2009) Accuracy of 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables. Acta Radiol 50(5):562–569PubMedCrossRef
21.
Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA et al (2014) Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 32(8):1292–1299
22.
Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ (2016) Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 70(2):211–213PubMedCrossRef
23.
Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Wu J et al (2015) Multiparametric MRI improves accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urology 86(2):332–337
24.
Jansen BHE, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, Oprea-Lager DE et al (2019) Adding multiparametric MRI to the MSKCC and Partin nomograms for primary prostate cancer: Improving local tumor staging? Urol Oncol 37(3):181 e1–e6
25.
Weaver JK, Kim EH, Vetter JM et al (2018) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging provides limited incremental value over the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center preradical prostatectomy nomogram. Urology 113:119–128
26.
Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC et al (2018) 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 122(6):1025–1033
27.
Ma S, Xie H, Wang H et al (2019) MRI-based radiomics signature for the preoperative prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 50(6):1914–1925
28.
Kim CK, Park SY, Park JJ, Park BK (2014) Diffusion-weighted MRI as a predictor of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(3):W270–W276PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822
Metadata
Title
Independent external validation of nomogram to predict extracapsular extension in patients with prostate cancer
Authors
Joao Ricardo Alves
Valdair F. Muglia
Fabiano R. Lucchesi
Raisa A. O. G. Faria
Cinthia Alcantara-Quispe
Vinicius L. Vazquez
Rodolfo B. Reis
Eliney F. Faria
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06839-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

European Radiology 9/2020 Go to the issue

Chest

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imaging reporting and data system (COVID-RADS) and common lexicon: a proposal based on the imaging data of 37 studies

Oncology

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for 755 benign breast lesions: a prospective multicenter study

Chest

A diagnostic model for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on radiological semantic and clinical features: a multi-center study

Magnetic Resonance

Prospective comparison of longitudinal change in hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) estimated by magnitude-based MRI (MRI-M) and complex-based MRI (MRI-C)

Neuro

Intraoperative imaging findings in transcranial MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound treatment at 1.5T may accurately detect typical lesional findings correlated with sonication parameters

Urogenital

MRI-directed high-frequency (29MhZ) TRUS-guided biopsies: initial results of a single-center study