Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Standard and Specialized Readings in Routine Practice for the Assessment of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer on MRI after Biopsy

  • Shin, Sung Hee (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, See Hyung (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital) ;
  • Ryeom, Hunkyu (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2019.08.12
  • Accepted : 2019.11.15
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively determine whether specialized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reading performed by an experienced radiologist affected the successful assessment of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in the presence of biopsy-related hemorrhage after prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: Two hundred consecutive patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent MRI. General radiologist and subspecialized radiologist readings were unpaired and reviewed in random order by a radiologist who was blinded to patients' clinical details and histopathologic data. The extent of hemorrhage was assessed on T1-weighted (T1W) MRI using a 1-4 scale, and the likelihood of EPE was assessed for each of the four categories. Histopathologic specimens served as the reference standard. The area under the curve (AUC) of the standard reading was compared to that of the specialized reading. Results: Post-biopsy hemorrhage was subjectively graded as ≥ 3 in 101 patients (50.5%) by standard reading, and in 100 patients (50.0%) by specialized reading. The standard and specialized readings disagreed for 40 (20.7%) of the patients (kappa [κ] = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48). Of these, specialized reading was the correct interpretation for 21 patients (52.5%). The sensitivity (75% vs. 44%; P = 0.002) and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) (0.83 vs. 0.67; P = 0.008) of the specialized readings were significantly higher than those of the standard readings, while there was no significant difference in specificity (84% vs. 87%; P = 0.434). Conclusion: The reinterpretation of MRI by experienced radiologists significantly improves the diagnosis of EPE in prostate cancer in the presence of post-biopsy hemorrhage.

Keywords

References

  1. Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;59:962-977 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.034
  2. Eberhardt SC, Carter S, Casalino DD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria prostate cancer--pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10:83-92 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.10.021
  3. Tollefson MK, Karnes RJ, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Boorjian SA. The impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2013;189:1707-1712 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.065
  4. Boccon-Gibod L, Bertaccini A, Bono AV, et al. Management of locally advanced prostate cancer: a European consensus. Int J Clin Pract 2003;57:187-194
  5. Yamada AH, Lieskovsky G, Petrovich Z, Chen SC, Groshen S, Skinner DG. Results of radical prostatectomy and adjuvant therapy in the management of locally advanced, clinical stage TC, prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1994;17:277-285 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-199408000-00001
  6. Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O, Goldman DA, Hricak H. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2012;263:751-757 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112100
  7. Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusionweighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:1387-1394 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22172
  8. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. Radiology 2006;238:184-191 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2381041832
  9. Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Multiparametric pelvic MRI accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer in the reevaluation of biopsy microfocal tumor. Anticancer Res 2015;35:395-399
  10. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-494 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009
  11. Quon J, Kielar AZ, Jain R, Schieda N. Assessing the utilization of functional imaging in multiparametric prostate MRI in routine clinical practice. Clin Radiol 2015;70:373-378 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.12.001
  12. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol 2011;24:26-38 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.158
  13. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011;24:6-15 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.178
  14. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845 https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
  15. McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology 2012;262:874-883 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11103504
  16. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Takriti S, et al. The role of conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision of whether to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2009;43:25-31 https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590802326610
  17. Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H. Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2010;20:995-1002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1625-x
  18. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005;237:541-549 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2372041724
  19. Hegde JV, Chen MH, Mulkern RV, Fennessy FM, D'Amico AV, Tempany CM. Preoperative 3-tesla multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance imaging findings and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:e101-107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.032
  20. Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C, Roosen A. Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice. World J Urol 2015;33:923-928 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1448-5
  21. Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Smith SC, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015;33:109 e115-122
  22. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2294-2302 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1389-z
  23. Woo SM, Kwon TK. Jaceosidin induces apoptosis through Bax activation and down-regulation of Mcl-1 and c-FLIP expression in human renal carcinoma Caki cells. Chem Biol Interact 2016;260:168-175 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2016.10.011