Multi-parametric MRI of the prostate: Factors predicting extracapsular extension at the time of radical prostatectomy
Geoffrey S. Gaunaya, Vinay Patela, Paras Shaha, Daniel Moreirab, Ardeshir R. Rastinehadc, Eran Ben-Levid, Robert Villanid, Manish A. Viraa
a The Smith Institute for Urology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA; b Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; c Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; d Department of Radiology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA
Multi-parametric MRI of the prostate: Factors predicting extracapsular extension at the time of radical prostatectomy
Geoffrey S. Gaunaya, Vinay Patela, Paras Shaha, Daniel Moreirab, Ardeshir R. Rastinehadc, Eran Ben-Levid, Robert Villanid, Manish A. Viraa
a The Smith Institute for Urology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA; b Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; c Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; d Department of Radiology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA
摘要 Objective: Extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer is a poor prognostic factor associated with progression, recurrence after treatment, and increased prostate cancer-related mortality. Accurate staging prior to radical prostatectomy is crucial in avoidance of positive margins and when planning nerve-sparing procedures. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has shown promise in this regard, but is hampered by poor sensitivity. We sought to identify additional clinical variables associated with pathologic ECE and determine our institutional accuracy in the detection of ECE amongst patients who went on to radical prostatectomy.Methods: mpMRI studies performed between the years 2012 and 2014 were cross-referenced with radical prostatectomy specimens. Predictive properties of ECE as well as additional clinical and biochemical variables to identify pathology-proven prostate cancer ECE were analyzed.Results: The prevalence of ECE was 32.4%, and the overall accuracy of mpMRI for ECE was 84.1%. Overall mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for detection of ECE were 58.3%, 97.8%, 93.3%, and 81.5%, respectively. Specific mpMRI characteristics predictive of pathologic ECE included primary lesion size ((20.73±9.09) mm, mean±SD, P<0.001), T2 PIRADS score (P=0.009), overall primary lesion score (P<0.001), overall study suspicion score (P=0.003), and MRI evidence of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (P=0.001)..Conclusion: While mpMRI is an accurate preoperative assessment tool for the detection of ECE, its overall sensitivity is poor, likely related to the low detection rate of standard protocol MRI for microscopic extraprostatic disease. The additional mpMRI findings described may also be considered in surgical margin planning prior to radical prostatectomy.
Abstract: Objective: Extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer is a poor prognostic factor associated with progression, recurrence after treatment, and increased prostate cancer-related mortality. Accurate staging prior to radical prostatectomy is crucial in avoidance of positive margins and when planning nerve-sparing procedures. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has shown promise in this regard, but is hampered by poor sensitivity. We sought to identify additional clinical variables associated with pathologic ECE and determine our institutional accuracy in the detection of ECE amongst patients who went on to radical prostatectomy.Methods: mpMRI studies performed between the years 2012 and 2014 were cross-referenced with radical prostatectomy specimens. Predictive properties of ECE as well as additional clinical and biochemical variables to identify pathology-proven prostate cancer ECE were analyzed.Results: The prevalence of ECE was 32.4%, and the overall accuracy of mpMRI for ECE was 84.1%. Overall mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for detection of ECE were 58.3%, 97.8%, 93.3%, and 81.5%, respectively. Specific mpMRI characteristics predictive of pathologic ECE included primary lesion size ((20.73±9.09) mm, mean±SD, P<0.001), T2 PIRADS score (P=0.009), overall primary lesion score (P<0.001), overall study suspicion score (P=0.003), and MRI evidence of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) (P=0.001)..Conclusion: While mpMRI is an accurate preoperative assessment tool for the detection of ECE, its overall sensitivity is poor, likely related to the low detection rate of standard protocol MRI for microscopic extraprostatic disease. The additional mpMRI findings described may also be considered in surgical margin planning prior to radical prostatectomy.
通讯作者:
Manish A. Vira,E-mail address:mvira@northwell.edu
E-mail: mvira@northwell.edu
引用本文:
Geoffrey S. Gaunay, Vinay Patel, Paras Shah, Daniel Moreira, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Eran Ben-Levi, Robert Villani, Manish A. Vira. Multi-parametric MRI of the prostate: Factors predicting extracapsular extension at the time of radical prostatectomy[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(1): 31-36.
Geoffrey S. Gaunay, Vinay Patel, Paras Shah, Daniel Moreira, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Eran Ben-Levi, Robert Villani, Manish A. Vira. Multi-parametric MRI of the prostate: Factors predicting extracapsular extension at the time of radical prostatectomy. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(1): 31-36.
[1] Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1e2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998;29:856e62. [2] Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528e34. [3] Kausik SJ, Blute ML, Sebo TJ, Leibovich BC, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, et al. Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in patients with extraprostatic carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2002;95:1215e9. [4] Lightfood AJ, Su YK, Sehgal SS, Lee Z, Greaves GH, Yu SJ, et al. Positive surgical margin trends in patients with pathologic T3 prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2015;29:634e9. [5] Hsu CY, Joniau S, Oyen R, Roskams T, Van Poppel H. Detection of clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer-by digital rectal examination or transrectal ultrasonography? BJU Int 2006;98:982e5. [6] Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, Walsh PC, Wojno KJ, Oesterling JE, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445e51. [7] Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, Maru N, Slawin KM, Shariat S, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension:a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171:1844e9. [8] Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Validation of Partin tables for predicting pathological stage of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164:1591e5. [9] Penson DF, Grossfeld GD, Li YP, Henning JM, Lubeck DP, Carroll PR. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. J Urol 2002;167:1653e8. [10] Steuber T, Karakiewicz PI, Augustin H, Erbersdobler A, Lange I, Haese A, et al. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions. J Urol 2005;173:737e41. [11] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 3.2016). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.[Accessed 27 May 2016]. [12] Mollet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, van den Bergh RCN, Bolla M, van Casteren NJ, et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology; 2015. [13] Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Tay KJ, Madden JF, George DJ, et al. Can radiologic staging with multiparametric MRI enhance the accuracy of the Partin tables in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207:87e95. [14] Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Wu J, Li Q, Luthringer D, Saouaf R, et al. Multiparametric MRI improves accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urology 2015;86:332e7. [15] Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, Passoni NM, Garcia-Reyes K, Madden JF, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2014;32:1292e9. [16] Muralidhar V, Dinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR, Chen YW, Viswanathan VB, et al. Differential post-prostatectomy cancer-specific survival of occult T3 vs. clinical T3 prostate cancer:implications for managing patients upstaged on prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Urol Oncol 2015;33:e19e25. [17] Poncheietti R, Di Loro F, Fanfani A, Amorosi A. Estimation of prostate cancer volume by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging vs. pathologic volume. Eur Urol 1999;35:32e5. [18] Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa Ca, de la Rosette JJ, Oosterhof GO, Thornbury JR, et al. Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging:correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:845e52. [19] Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746e57. [20] Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. CaPSURE. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer:implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170:S21e7. [21] de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer:a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016;70:233e45. [22] ACR-SAR-SPR Practice parameter for the performance of magnetic resonance (MRI) of the soft-tissue components of the pelvis. https://www.acr.org/w/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/MRI_Soft_Tissue_Pelvis.pdf. [23] Lawrence EM, Gallagher FA, Barrett T, Warren AY, Priest AN, Goldman DA, et al. Preoperative 3-T diffusion-weighted MRI for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of extracapsular extension in patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:W280e6. [24] Min BD, Kim WT, Cho BS, Kim YJ, Yun SJ, Lee SC, et al. Usefulness of a combined approach of T1-weighted, T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 2012;53:830e5. [25] Chong Y, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Kwon GY, Park JJ. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T for prediction of extracapsular extension in patients with prostate cancer:a preliminary study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:772e7. [26] Kim CK, Park SY, Park JJ, Park BK. Diffusion-weighted MRI as a predictor of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W270e6. [27] Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. Extracapsular extension in prostate cancer:added value of diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with equivocal findings on T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:W168e75. [28] Rosenkrantz AB, Chandarana H, Gilet A, Deng FM, Babb JS, Melamed J, et al. Prostate cancer:utility of diffusionweighted imaging as a marker of side-specific risk of extracapsular extension. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38:312e9. [29] Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:883e8. [30] Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate:comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:720e6. [31] Giganti F, Coppola A, Ambrosi A, Ravelli S, Esposito A, Freschi M, et al. 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 2016;34. 291.e9e291.e17. [32] Steiger P, Thoeny HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2:how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016;16:9. [33] Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl K, Catalona WJ. Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69:1170e5. [34] Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Hu J, Kim S, Briganti A, Sammon JD, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol 2014;28:784e91. [35] Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Schwab C, Alt C, et al. The impact of magnetic resonance imaging on prediction of extraprostatic extension and prostatectomy outcome in patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer:try to find a standard. J Endourol 2015;29:1396e405. [36] Tamada T, Song T, Kanomata N, Miyaji Y, Kido A, Jo Y, et al. Value of preoperative 3T multiparametric MRI for surgical margin status in patients with prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:584e93. [37] Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Smith SC, Miller J, Nguyen C, Li Q, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015;33. 109.e15e109.e22. [38] Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, Choi HY, et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2014;192:82e8. [39] Van Holsbeeck A, Degroote A, De Wever L, Vanhoutte E, De Keyzer F, Van Poppel H, et al. Staging of prostatic carcinoma at 1.5-T MRI:correlation of a simplified MRI exam with wholemount radical prostatectomy specimens. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20160101. [40] Cornud F, Rouanne M, Beuvon F, Eiss D, Flam T, Liberatore M, et al. Endorectal 3D T2-weighted 1 mm-slice thickness MRI for prostate cancer staging at 1.5 Tesla:should we reconsider the indirect signs of extracapsular extension according to the D'Amico tumor risk criteria. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:e591e7. [41] Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbø HB, Hung AJ, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193:466e72. [42] Karavitakis M, Ahmed HU, Abel PD, Hazell S, Winkler MH. Margin status after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the index lesion:implications for preoperative evaluation of tumor focality in prostate cancer. J Endourol 2012;26:503e8. [43] Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2016;70:211e3.
Christopher Hartman, Nikhil Gupta, David Leavitt, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith. Advances in percutaneous stone surgery[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2015, 2(1): 26
-32
.
