Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Estimated diagnostic performance of prostate MRI performed with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer

Authors: Hirotsugu Nakai, Hiroaki Takahashi, Jordan D. LeGout, Akira Kawashima, Adam T. Froemming, Derek J. Lomas, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Chandler Dora, Naoki Takahashi

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI by estimating the proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients without prostate pathology.

Materials and methods

This three-center retrospective study included prostate MRI examinations performed for clinical suspicion of csPCa (Grade group ≥ 2) between 2018 and 2022. Examinations were divided into two groups: pathological diagnosis within 1 year after the MRI (post-MRI pathology) is present and absent. Risk prediction models were developed using the extracted eleven common predictive variables from the patients with post-MRI pathology. Then, the csPCa proportion in the patients without post-MRI pathology was estimated by applying the model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of prostate MRI in diagnosing csPCa were subsequently calculated for patients with and without post-MRI prostate pathology (estimated statistics) with a positive threshold of PI-RADS ≥ 3.

Results

Of 12,191 examinations enrolled (mean age, 65.7 years ± 8.4 [standard deviation]), PI-RADS 1–2 was most frequently assigned (55.4%) with the lowest pathological confirmation rate of 14.0–18.2%. Post-MRI prostate pathology was found in 5670 (46.5%) examinations. The estimated csPCa proportions across facilities were 12.6–15.3%, 18.4–31.4%, 45.7–69.9%, and 75.4–88.3% in PI-RADS scores of 1–2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The estimated (observed) performance statistics were as follows: AUC, 0.78–0.81 (0.76–0.79); sensitivity, 76.6–77.3%; specificity, 67.5–78.6%; PPV, 49.8–66.6% (52.0–67.7%); and NPV, 84.4–87.2% (82.4–86.6%).

Conclusion

We proposed a method to estimate the probabilities harboring csPCa for patients who underwent prostate MRI examinations, which allows us to understand the PI-RADS diagnostic performance with several metrics.

Clinical relevance statement

The reported estimated performance metrics are expected to aid in understanding the true diagnostic value of PI-RADS in the entire prostate MRI population performed with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.

Key Points

  • Calculating performance metrics only from patients who underwent prostate biopsy may be biased due to biopsy selection criteria, especially in PI-RADS 1–2.
  • The estimated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of PI-RADS in the entire prostate MRI population ranged from 0.78 to 0.81 at three facilities.
  • The estimated statistics are expected to help us understand the true PI-RADS performance and serve as a reference for future studies.

Graphical Abstract

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351CrossRefPubMed Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Salka BR, Shankar PR, Troost JP et al (2022) Effect of prostate MRI interpretation experience on PPV using PI-RADS version 2: a 6-year assessment among eight fellowship-trained radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 219:453–460CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Salka BR, Shankar PR, Troost JP et al (2022) Effect of prostate MRI interpretation experience on PPV using PI-RADS version 2: a 6-year assessment among eight fellowship-trained radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 219:453–460CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Davenport MS, Downs E, George AK et al (2021) Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 as a radiology performance metric: an analysis of 18 abdominal radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1069–1076CrossRefPubMed Davenport MS, Downs E, George AK et al (2021) Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 as a radiology performance metric: an analysis of 18 abdominal radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1069–1076CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM et al (2020) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology 296:76–84CrossRefPubMed Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM et al (2020) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology 296:76–84CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Shankar PR, Davenport MS, Helvie MA (2020) Prostate MRI and quality: lessons learned from breast imaging rad-path correlation. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:4028–4030CrossRefPubMed Shankar PR, Davenport MS, Helvie MA (2020) Prostate MRI and quality: lessons learned from breast imaging rad-path correlation. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:4028–4030CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hardesty LA, Klym AH, Shindel BE et al (2005) Is maximum positive predictive value a good indicator of an optimal screening mammography practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1505–1507CrossRefPubMed Hardesty LA, Klym AH, Shindel BE et al (2005) Is maximum positive predictive value a good indicator of an optimal screening mammography practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1505–1507CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E et al (2020) Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 78:402–414CrossRefPubMed Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E et al (2020) Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 78:402–414CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Knaapila J, Jambor I, Ettala O et al (2021) Negative predictive value of biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in excluding significant prostate cancer: a pooled data analysis based on clinical data from four prospective, registered studies. Eur Urol Focus 7:522–531CrossRefPubMed Knaapila J, Jambor I, Ettala O et al (2021) Negative predictive value of biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in excluding significant prostate cancer: a pooled data analysis based on clinical data from four prospective, registered studies. Eur Urol Focus 7:522–531CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Bazargani S, Bandyk M, Balaji KC (2021) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: what about the negatives? Radiology 298:E57CrossRefPubMed Bazargani S, Bandyk M, Balaji KC (2021) Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: what about the negatives? Radiology 298:E57CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Reijnen JS, Marthinsen JB, Tysland AO et al (2021) Results from a PI-RADS-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for biopsy-naive patients in a non-university hospital. Abdom Radiol (NY) 46:5639–5646CrossRefPubMed Reijnen JS, Marthinsen JB, Tysland AO et al (2021) Results from a PI-RADS-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for biopsy-naive patients in a non-university hospital. Abdom Radiol (NY) 46:5639–5646CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A et al (2021) Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol 4:971–979CrossRefPubMed Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A et al (2021) Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol 4:971–979CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Stevens E, Truong M, Bullen JA et al (2020) Clinical utility of PSAD combined with PI-RADS category for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 38:846.e9–846.e16CrossRefPubMed Stevens E, Truong M, Bullen JA et al (2020) Clinical utility of PSAD combined with PI-RADS category for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 38:846.e9–846.e16CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Patel HD, Koehne EL, Shea SM et al (2022) Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy-naive men: a prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort. Cancer 128:75–84CrossRefPubMed Patel HD, Koehne EL, Shea SM et al (2022) Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy-naive men: a prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort. Cancer 128:75–84CrossRefPubMed
17.
19.
go back to reference Nakai H, Takahashi H, Adamo DA et al (2024) Decreased prostate MRI cancer detection rate due to moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis. Eur Radiol 34:3387–3399 Nakai H, Takahashi H, Adamo DA et al (2024) Decreased prostate MRI cancer detection rate due to moderate to severe susceptibility artifacts from hip prosthesis. Eur Radiol 34:3387–3399
21.
22.
go back to reference Naji L, Randhawa H, Sohani Z et al (2018) Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 16:149–154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Naji L, Randhawa H, Sohani Z et al (2018) Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 16:149–154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Liu H, Bielinski SJ, Sohn S et al (2013) An information extraction framework for cohort identification using electronic health records. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2013:149–153 Liu H, Bielinski SJ, Sohn S et al (2013) An information extraction framework for cohort identification using electronic health records. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc 2013:149–153
24.
go back to reference Azur MJ, Stuart EA, Frangakis C, Leaf PJ (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 20:40–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Azur MJ, Stuart EA, Frangakis C, Leaf PJ (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 20:40–49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. New York: Springer James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. New York: Springer
27.
go back to reference van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578CrossRefPubMed van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109CrossRefPubMed Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference 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 40:244–252CrossRefPubMed 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 40:244–252CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM et al (2019) Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 75:310–318CrossRefPubMed Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM et al (2019) Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 75:310–318CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S et al (2018) A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 4:678–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S et al (2018) A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 4:678–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C et al (2017) Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 72:888–896CrossRefPubMed Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C et al (2017) Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 72:888–896CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE et al (2017) A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 120:774–781CrossRefPubMed van Leeuwen PJ, Hayen A, Thompson JE et al (2017) A multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based risk model to determine the risk of significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy. BJU Int 120:774–781CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Norris JM, Carmona LM, Bott-Simon RJ et al (2020) What Type of Prostate Cancer Is Systematically Overlooked by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? An Analysis from the PROMIS Cohort European Urology 78:163–170 Norris JM, Carmona LM, Bott-Simon RJ et al (2020) What Type of Prostate Cancer Is Systematically Overlooked by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? An Analysis from the PROMIS Cohort European Urology 78:163–170
35.
go back to reference Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J et al (2015) Pitfalls in Interpreting mp-MRI of the Prostate: A Pictorial Review with Pathologic Correlation. Insights Imaging 6:611–630 Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J et al (2015) Pitfalls in Interpreting mp-MRI of the Prostate: A Pictorial Review with Pathologic Correlation. Insights Imaging 6:611–630
36.
go back to reference van Houdt PJ, Ghobadi G, Schoots IG et al (2020) Histopathological Features of MRI‐Invisible Regions of Prostate Cancer Lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 51:1235–1246 van Houdt PJ, Ghobadi G, Schoots IG et al (2020) Histopathological Features of MRI‐Invisible Regions of Prostate Cancer Lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 51:1235–1246
37.
go back to reference Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M et al (2020) Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 3:615–619CrossRefPubMed Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M et al (2020) Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 3:615–619CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference De Rooij M, Barentsz JO (2022) PI-QUAL v.1: the first step towards good-quality prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 32:876–878CrossRefPubMed De Rooij M, Barentsz JO (2022) PI-QUAL v.1: the first step towards good-quality prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 32:876–878CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Giganti F, Kirkham A, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2021) Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists. Insights Imaging 12:59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Giganti F, Kirkham A, Kasivisvanathan V et al (2021) Understanding PI-QUAL for prostate MRI quality: a practical primer for radiologists. Insights Imaging 12:59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
go back to reference Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J et al (2015) Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: a pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging 6:611–630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Barentsz J et al (2015) Pitfalls in interpreting mp-MRI of the prostate: a pictorial review with pathologic correlation. Insights Imaging 6:611–630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Naeger DM, Kohi MP, Webb EM et al (2013) Correctly using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in clinical practice: how to avoid three common pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:W566–W570CrossRefPubMed Naeger DM, Kohi MP, Webb EM et al (2013) Correctly using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values in clinical practice: how to avoid three common pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:W566–W570CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Estimated diagnostic performance of prostate MRI performed with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer
Authors
Hirotsugu Nakai
Hiroaki Takahashi
Jordan D. LeGout
Akira Kawashima
Adam T. Froemming
Derek J. Lomas
Mitchell R. Humphreys
Chandler Dora
Naoki Takahashi
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
Springer Vienna
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01845-y