Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urology and Nephrology 4/2016

01-04-2016 | Urology - Original Paper

Validating multiparametric MRI for diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer in patients for active surveillance

Authors: Iqbal Sahibzada, Deepak Batura, Giles Hellawell

Published in: International Urology and Nephrology | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-bx) for the diagnosis and monitoring of small-volume prostate cancer (PCa) in patients on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

In a retrospective cross-sectional validation study, 100 patients on AS for PCa underwent a systematic 12-core TRUS-bx (the gold standard) as well as mpMRI, on either a 1.5 or 3 Tesla scanner (32 and 68 patients, respectively). Three pathologists reported biopsy histology separately. A single, experienced radiologist scored mpMRI scans using the PI-RADS system. We compared left- and right-sided PI-RADS scores of the peripheral zone with TRUS-bx results of the relevant prostate lobe. We then estimated the specificity and sensitivity of mpMRI in diagnosing low-grade low-risk PCa in our AS cohort.

Results

The sensitivity of mpMRI was 37 % (95 % CI 28–47 %) and specificity was 85 % (CI 76–92 %) for cancer. The negative predictive value was 51 % (CI 44–60 %), and the positive predictive value was 76 % (CI 62–87 %). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2.5 and 0.7, respectively.

Conclusion

Because of its low specificity and low negative predictive value, mpMRI is not suitable for diagnosing low-grade small-volume PCa. However, because of a specificity of 85 % and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.7, mpMRI may be useful for follow-up of previously TRUS-bx diagnosed patients who are on AS.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM (2008) The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 tesla: the beth israel deaconess medical center (BIDMC) approach. Cancer 4(4–5):251–262 Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM (2008) The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 tesla: the beth israel deaconess medical center (BIDMC) approach. Cancer 4(4–5):251–262
2.
go back to reference Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494CrossRefPubMed Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim N, Kim KW, Choi EK, Cho KS (2007) Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics 27(1):63–75CrossRefPubMed Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim N, Kim KW, Choi EK, Cho KS (2007) Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics 27(1):63–75CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA, Parker GJ, Suckling J, Revell PB et al (2000) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 55(2):99–109CrossRefPubMed Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA, Parker GJ, Suckling J, Revell PB et al (2000) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 55(2):99–109CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, Kessler TM, Sulser T, Weishaupt D et al (2009) Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 55(3):575–590CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, Kessler TM, Sulser T, Weishaupt D et al (2009) Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 55(3):575–590CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71PubMed Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71PubMed
8.
go back to reference Chen S-S, Chiu L-P, Chen K-K (2010) Comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for detection of prostate cancer in patients with moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. J Chin Med Assoc 73(11):568–572CrossRefPubMed Chen S-S, Chiu L-P, Chen K-K (2010) Comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for detection of prostate cancer in patients with moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. J Chin Med Assoc 73(11):568–572CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference D’Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, Chen MH, Schultz D, Whittington R et al (1998) Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 82(10):1887–1896CrossRefPubMed D’Amico AV, Desjardin A, Chung A, Chen MH, Schultz D, Whittington R et al (1998) Assessment of outcome prediction models for patients with localized prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Cancer 82(10):1887–1896CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66CrossRefPubMed Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Penzkofer T, Tempany-Afdhal CM (2014) Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison to other diagnostic modalities—a radiologist’s perspective. NMR Biomed 27(1):3–15CrossRefPubMed Penzkofer T, Tempany-Afdhal CM (2014) Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison to other diagnostic modalities—a radiologist’s perspective. NMR Biomed 27(1):3–15CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Batura D, Gopal RG (2013) The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:247–249CrossRefPubMed Batura D, Gopal RG (2013) The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:247–249CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183(3):963–969CrossRefPubMed Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183(3):963–969CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Gopal Rao G, Batura D (2014) Emergency hospital admissions attributable to infective complications of prostate biopsy despite appropriate prophylaxis: need for additional infection prevention strategies? Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):309–315CrossRefPubMed Gopal Rao G, Batura D (2014) Emergency hospital admissions attributable to infective complications of prostate biopsy despite appropriate prophylaxis: need for additional infection prevention strategies? Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):309–315CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Roethke M, Anastasiadis G, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S et al (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218CrossRefPubMed Roethke M, Anastasiadis G, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S et al (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Thulkar S, Kumar R (2012) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19(7):602–613CrossRefPubMed Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Thulkar S, Kumar R (2012) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19(7):602–613CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Ehdaie B, Shariat SF (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted prostate biopsy: back to the future. Eur Urol 63(1):141–142CrossRefPubMed Ehdaie B, Shariat SF (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted prostate biopsy: back to the future. Eur Urol 63(1):141–142CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Moran M, Marignol M, Perry P, Fagan F, Gaffney G, Meaney M et al (2013) 355 Parametric diffusion weighted imaging at 3 tesla accurately predicts histological outcomes in men presenting for a TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate. Eur Urol Suppl 12(1):e355. doi:10.1016/S1569-9056(13)60840-4 CrossRef Moran M, Marignol M, Perry P, Fagan F, Gaffney G, Meaney M et al (2013) 355 Parametric diffusion weighted imaging at 3 tesla accurately predicts histological outcomes in men presenting for a TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate. Eur Urol Suppl 12(1):e355. doi:10.​1016/​S1569-9056(13)60840-4 CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Villers V, Marliere M, Ouzzane O, Puech P, Lemaître L (2012) MRI in addition to or as a substitute for prostate biopsy: the clinician’s point of view. Diagn Interv Imaging 93(4):262–267CrossRefPubMed Villers V, Marliere M, Ouzzane O, Puech P, Lemaître L (2012) MRI in addition to or as a substitute for prostate biopsy: the clinician’s point of view. Diagn Interv Imaging 93(4):262–267CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2015) The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 16(6):42CrossRefPubMed Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2015) The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 16(6):42CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
go back to reference Coakley FV, Chen I, Qayyum A, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR, Hricak H et al (2007) Validity of prostate-specific antigen as a tumour marker in men with prostate cancer managed by watchful-waiting: correlation with findings at serial endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging. BJU Int 99(1):41–45CrossRefPubMed Coakley FV, Chen I, Qayyum A, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR, Hricak H et al (2007) Validity of prostate-specific antigen as a tumour marker in men with prostate cancer managed by watchful-waiting: correlation with findings at serial endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging. BJU Int 99(1):41–45CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2011) D’Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 185(3):815–820CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2011) D’Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 185(3):815–820CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Stephenson SK, Chang EK, Marks LS (2014) Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am 41(2):315–326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stephenson SK, Chang EK, Marks LS (2014) Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am 41(2):315–326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A et al (2015) A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(1):220–225CrossRefPubMed Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A et al (2015) A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(1):220–225CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, Karl A, Coakley FV, Shinohara K, Carroll PR (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256(1):176–183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, Karl A, Coakley FV, Shinohara K, Carroll PR (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256(1):176–183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC (2014) 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 66(1):22–29CrossRefPubMed Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC (2014) 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 66(1):22–29CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Monzen Y, Kurose T, Okazaki H, Mito M, Wadasaki K et al (2012) MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5T and 3T comparison of image quality in tumor detection. ESR. doi:10.1594/ecr2012/C-0048 Monzen Y, Kurose T, Okazaki H, Mito M, Wadasaki K et al (2012) MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5T and 3T comparison of image quality in tumor detection. ESR. doi:10.​1594/​ecr2012/​C-0048
31.
go back to reference Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Barzell W et al (2012) A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 110(6):812–820CrossRefPubMed Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Barzell W et al (2012) A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 110(6):812–820CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validating multiparametric MRI for diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer in patients for active surveillance
Authors
Iqbal Sahibzada
Deepak Batura
Giles Hellawell
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Urology and Nephrology / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0301-1623
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2584
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1212-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

International Urology and Nephrology 4/2016 Go to the issue