Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and MR volumetry as independent associative factors for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in prostatic carcinoma

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 726-736

  Lim, Christopher ^a   Flood, Trevor A ^a   Hakim, Shaheed W ^a   Shabana, Wael M ^a   Quon, Jeffrey S ^a   El Khodary, Mohamed ^a   Thornhill, Rebecca E ^a   El Hallani, Soufiane ^a   Schieda, Nicola ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

apparent diffusion coefficient; local staging; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; volume

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; EXTRAPROSTATIC EXTENSION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PERCENTAGE POSITIVE CORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; CARCINOMA; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOLOGY;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; CARCINOMA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84959541454     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25033     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Volume 2013. Fort Washington, PA: Network NCC; 2012.
2. European Association of Urology (EAU). Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands: 2012.
3. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al., The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150: 110-114.
4. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, et al., An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013; 111: 22-29.
5. Yu JB, Makarov DV, Sharma R, Peschel RE, Partin AW, Gross CP,. Validation of the partin nomogram for prostate cancer in a national sample. J Urol 2010; 183: 105-111.
6. Huang Y, Isharwal S, Haese A, et al., Prediction of patient-specific risk and percentile cohort risk of pathological stage outcome using continuous prostate-specific antigen measurement, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason score. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1562-1569.
7. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW,. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008; 113: 3075-3099.
8. Fanning DM, Fan Y, Fitzpatrick JM, Watson RW,. External validation of the 2007 and 2001 Partin tables in Irish prostate cancer patients. Urol Int 2010; 84: 174-179.
9. Boyce S, Fan Y, Watson RW, Murphy TB,. Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 126.
10. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM,. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166: 104-109; discussion 109-110.
11. Koksal IT, Ozcan F, Kadioglu TC, Esen T, Kilicaslan I, Tunc M,. Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 2000; 37: 670-674.
12. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, Marberger M, Roehrborn CG,. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 1998; 33: 261-270.
13. Bostwick DG,. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18: 796-803.
14. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al., ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Yacoub JH, Oto A, Miller FH,. MR imaging of the prostate. Radiol Clin North Am 2014; 52: 811-837.
18. Soylu FN, Eggener S, Oto A,. Local staging of prostate cancer with MRI. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012; 18: 365-373.
19. Hole KH, Axcrona K, Lie AK, et al., Routine pelvic MRI using phased-array coil for detection of extraprostatic tumour extension: accuracy and clinical significance. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 1158-1166.
20. Bloch BN, Genega EM, Costa DN, et al., Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2201-2210.
21. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al., Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1055-1065.
22. Ren J, Huan Y, Wang H, et al., Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: prediction with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2481-2486.
23. Claus FG, Hricak H, Hattery RR,. Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. Radiographics 2004; 24 (Suppl 1): S167-S180.
24. Boonsirikamchai P, Choi S, Frank SJ, et al., MR imaging of prostate cancer in radiation oncology: what radiologists need to know. Radiographics 2013; 33: 741-761.
25. Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, et al., Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging - initial results. Radiology 2007; 245: 176-185.
26. 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.
27. Doo KW, Sung DJ, Park BJ, et al., Detectability of low and intermediate or high risk prostate cancer with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1812-1819.
28. Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, et al., 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 2013; 37: 1035-1054.
29. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al., Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261: 46-66.
30. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al., Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2019-2029.
31. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM,. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 343-351.
32. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al., Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259: 453-461.
33. Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, Gasparetto EL,. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 468-475.
34. Min JH, Park BK, Park JJ, Park SY, Kim CK,. Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer using prebiopsy MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 341-346.
35. Gondo T, Hricak H, Sala E, et al., Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 3161-3170.
36. 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: W270-W276.
37. Lawrence EM, Gallagher FA, Barrett T, 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: W280-W286.
38. Yadav R, Tu JJ, Jhaveri J, Leung RA, Rao S, Tewari AK,. Prostate volume and the incidence of extraprostatic extension: is there a relation? J Endourol 2009; 23: 383-386.
39. Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT,. Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. Mod Pathol 1997; 10: 326-333.
40. Knoedler JJ, Karnes RJ, Thompson RH, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Boorjian SA,. The association of tumor volume with mortality following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17: 144-148.
41. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al., Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol 2001; 165: 851-856.
42. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al., EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124-137.
43. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, et al., How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology 2015; 275: 144-154.
44. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, et al., Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002; 223: 91-97.
45. Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, et al., Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology 2009; 252: 449-457.
46. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al., Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012; 188: 1157-1163.
47. Cornud F, Khoury G, Bouazza N, et al., Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer-does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation? J Urol 2014; 191: 1272-1279.
48. Schlemmer HP, Corvin S,. Methods for volume assessment of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 597-606.
49. Kryvenko ON, Diaz M, Meier FA, Ramineni M, Menon M, Gupta NS,. Findings in 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy that predict more advanced cancer at prostatectomy: analysis of 388 biopsy-prostatectomy pairs. Am J Clin Pathol 2012; 137: 739-746.
50. Tsuzuki T, Hernandez DJ, Aydin H, Trock B, Walsh PC, Epstein JI,. Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. J Urol 2005; 173: 450-453.
51. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al., Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119: 3359-3366.
52. Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW, et al., Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 2014; 465: 623-628.
53. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al., The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 1387-1405.
54. Johnson LM, Choyke PL, Figg WD, Turkbey B,. The role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 203906.
55. 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.
56. Schieda N, Quon JS, Lim C, et al., Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
57. Coffey N, Schieda N, Cron G, Gulavita P, Mai KT, Flood TA,. Multi-parametric (mp) MRI of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 1639-1645.
58. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al., Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171: 1844-1849; discussion 1849.
59. Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, et al., Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006; 175 (Pt 1): 939-944; discussion 944.
60. Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Donahue TF, et al., Diagnosis of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer on prostate MRI: impact of second-opinion readings by subspecialized genitourinary oncologic radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205: W73-W78.
61. 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: W168-W175.
62. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, et al., Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2014; 271: 143-152.
63. Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, Deng FM,. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 708-714.
64. National Institutes of Health. Role of Active Surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2011.
65. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al., EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71.
66. 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.