Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2018 | Original Article

Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve

Authors: B. H. E. Jansen, F. H. K. Oudshoorn, A. M. Tijans, M. J. Yska, A. P. Lont, E. R. P. Collette, J. A. Nieuwenhuijzen, A. N. Vis

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for the detection of locally advanced prostate cancer (T-stage 3–4) prior to radical prostatectomy, in a multicenter cohort representing daily clinical practice. In addition, the radiologic learning curve for the detection of locally advanced disease is evaluated.

Methods

Preoperative mpMRI findings of 430 patients (2012–2016) were compared to pathology results following radical prostatectomy. The diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV) for the detection of locally advanced disease was calculated and compared for all years separately, to evaluate the presence of a radiological learning curve.

Results

Of all 137 patients with locally advanced disease, 62 patients were preoperatively detected with mpMRI [sensitivity 45.3% (95% CI 36.9–53.6%), specificity 75.8% (CI 70.9–80.7%), PPV 46.6% (CI 38.1–55.1%), and NPV 74.7% (CI 69.8–79.7%)]. The diagnostic accuracy did not improve significantly over time (sensitivity p = 0.12; specificity p = 0.57).

Conclusions

In daily clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for the detection of locally advanced prostate cancer remains limited. It, therefore, seems questionable whether mpMRI is adequate to guide preoperative decision-making. No significant radiologic learning curve for the detection of locally advance disease was observed.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210 CrossRefPubMed

Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, Carroll PR (2005) The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the prostate risk assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173(6):1938–1942. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRefPubMed

Fahmy O, Khairul-Asri MG, Hadi S, Gakis G, Stenzl A (2017) The role of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. https://doi.org/10.1159/000478789 PubMedCrossRef

Choo MS, Kim M, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong CW (2017) Extended versus standard pelvic lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy on oncological and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(7):2047–2054. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5822-6 CrossRefPubMed

Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB (2001) Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 28(3):535–543CrossRefPubMed

Bolla M, Van Tienhoven G, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff RO, Storme G, Bernier J, Kuten A, Sternberg C, Billiet I, Torecilla JL, Pfeffer R, Cutajar CL, Van der Kwast T, Collette L (2010) External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 11(11):1066–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70223-0 CrossRefPubMed

Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, Jewell D, Powell P, Gillatt D, Dedman D, Mills N, Smith M, Noble S, Lane A (2003) Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 7(14):1–88CrossRefPubMed

Schreiber D, Wong AT, Rineer J, Weedon J, Schwartz D (2015) Prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample: a surveillance, epidemiology and end results study. J Clin Pathol 68(6):453–457. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202767 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Trock BJ, Partin AW (2013) An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 111(1):22–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x CrossRefPubMed

11.

Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, Humphreys EB, Han M, Pavlovich CP, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Trock BJ (2017) Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: partin tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int 119(5):676–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13573 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, Fennessy FM, Fedorov A, Maier SE, Tempany CM (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(5):1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23860 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

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):233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC, Babb JS, Margolis DJ (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, Marko J, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, de la Rosette JJ, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto P, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277(3):741–750. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142818 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P, Somberg M, Taneja SS (2017) The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(3):W92–W100. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.16876 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, Frey J, Seidenader J, Carmona L, Warren A, Gnanapragasam V, Doble A, Kastner C (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117(1):80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12892 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS Jr, Porter CR, Lacrampe M, Vaughan M, Lin E, Conti N, Wright JL, Corman JM (2007) Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 14(1):3429–3434PubMed

19.

Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H (2010) Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 20(4):995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1625-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Urologie (2016) Prostaatcarcinoom, Landelijke richtlijn, version 2016. http://oncoline.nl/prostaatcarcinoom

21.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lebacle C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Moktefi A, Bouanane M, De La Taille A, Salomon L (2017) Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 35(9):1409–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1981-5 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kirkham AP, Haslam P, Keanie JY, McCafferty I, Padhani AR, Punwani S, Richenberg J, Rottenberg G, Sohaib A, Thompson P, Turnbull LW, Kurban L, Sahdev A, Clements R, Carey BM, Allen C (2013) Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol 68(10):1016–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.030 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve
Authors: B. H. E. Jansen
F. H. K. Oudshoorn
A. M. Tijans
M. J. Yska
A. P. Lont
E. R. P. Collette
J. A. Nieuwenhuijzen
A. N. Vis
Publication date: 01-09-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2295-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Pair-matched patient-reported quality of life and early oncological control following focal irreversible electroporation versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance

Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology

Thermal effects of Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy: real-time evaluation in an in vitro model

Early tumor shrinkage is independently associated with improved overall survival among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a validation study using the COMPARZ cohort

Predictors of surgical intervention following initial surveillance for acute ureteric colic