Advertisement
Body Imaging| Volume 55, P174-180, May 2019

Download started.

Ok

Characterization and PI-RADS version 2 assessment of prostate cancers missed by prebiopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI: Correlation with whole-mount thin-section histopathology

  • Kye Jin Park
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05507, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Mi-hyun Kim
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 138-736, Republic of Korea.
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05507, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jeong Kon Kim
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05507, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kyoung-Sik Cho
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05507, Republic of Korea
    Search for articles by this author
Published:March 08, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.03.004
Characterization and PI-RADS version 2 assessment of prostate cancers missed by prebiopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI: Correlation with whole-mount thin-section histopathology
Previous ArticleNew radiologic classification of renal angiomyolipoma: frequently asked questions
Next ArticleQuantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM)

      Highlights

      • •
        Multiparametric MRI can miss a clinically significant prostate cancer.
      • •
        Prostate cancers can be missed if the tumour volume is below 1 cm3.
      • •
        Not all clinically significant prostate cancers can be demonstrated on multiparametric MRI.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To determine the clinical and histopathologic characteristics of missed prostate cancers and their Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) score on a pre-biopsy MRI and subsequent MR-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy.

      Methods

      We analysed 59 prostate cancer patients who underwent a 3-T MRI prior to an MR-US fusion biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A radiologist initially reviewed these cases to correlate target lesions and pathology-proven lesions. The patients were categorized as detected or missed prostate cancer cases. Three radiologists independently assigned the PI-RADS v2 score for each case. The missed lesions were further categorized as suspicious or invisible by consensus. The clinical characteristics, PI-RADS v2 scores, and histopathologic features were thereby obtained.

      Results

      Thirty seven (62.7%) of the 59 study cases had a detected prostate cancer and 22 (37.3%) as having missed cancer. Seventeen (77.3%) of the 22 missed patients had a clinically significant lesion. The missed cancer cases had a smaller tumour volume, and higher ADC ratio than the detected cancer cases. Fourteen (63.6%) of the missed lesions were not visible on MRI, even though 71.4% of these cancers were clinically significant. Invisible but clinically significant cancers had a tumour volume below 1 cm3 in 70% of cases.

      Conclusions

      A negative MRI result does not rule out the current PI-RADS v2 definition of a clinically significant prostate cancer as these tumours can be missed if their volume is below 1 cm3.

      Abbreviations:

      mpMRI (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging), TRUS (transrectal ultrasound), PI-RADS v2 (the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data system version 2), RP (radical prostatectomy), MR-US (magnetic resonance-ultrasound), PSA (prostate-specific antigen), GS (Gleason score), ROI (region-of-interest), ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kasivisvanathan V.
        • Rannikko A.S.
        • Borghi M.
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777
        View in Article
        • Pokorny M.R.
        • de Rooij M.
        • Duncan E.
        • et al.
        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. 2014; 66: 22-29
        View in Article

      3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet (London, England) 2017; 389 (10071): 815–22.

        View in Article
        • Schoots I.G.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Nieboer D.
        • Bangma C.H.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Hunink M.G.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 438-450
        View in Article
        • Numao N.
        • Yoshida S.
        • Komai Y.
        • et al.
        Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 502-508
        View in Article
        • Thompson J.E.
        • Moses D.
        • Shnier R.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 67-74
        View in Article
        • Nam R.K.
        • Wallis C.J.
        • Stojcic-Bendavid J.
        • et al.
        A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the general population.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 361-366
        View in Article
        • Arsov C.
        • Rabenalt R.
        • Blondin D.
        • et al.
        Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 713-720
        View in Article
        • Tan N.
        • Margolis D.J.
        • Lu D.Y.
        • et al.
        Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3-T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205: W87-W92
        View in Article
        • De Visschere P.J.
        • Naesens L.
        • Libbrecht L.
        • et al.
        What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging?.
        Eur Radiol. 2016; 26: 1098-1107
        View in Article

      11. Mohammadian Bajgiran A, Afshari Mirak S, Shakeri S, et al. Characteristics of missed prostate cancer lesions on 3T multiparametric-MRI in 518 patients: based on PI-RADSv2 and using whole-mount histopathology reference. Abdominal Radiology (New York) 2018.

        View in Article

      12. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69(1): 16–40.

        View in Article
        • Moldovan P.C.
        • Van den Broeck T.
        • Sylvester R.
        • et al.
        What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 250-266
        View in Article
        • Hong S.K.
        • Han B.K.
        • Lee S.T.
        • et al.
        Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy.
        World J Urol. 2009; 27: 271-276
        View in Article
        • Gofrit O.N.
        • Zorn K.C.
        • Taxy J.B.
        • et al.
        Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer.
        J Urol. 2007; 178: 1925-1928
        View in Article

      16. Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ, Magi-Galluzzi C, Reuther AM, Klein EA. Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. The Journal of Urology 2008; 179(3): 896–900; discussion.

        View in Article
        • Wolters T.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • van Leeuwen P.J.
        • et al.
        A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 121-125
        View in Article
        • Ploussard G.
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Montironi R.
        • et al.
        The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2011; 60: 291-303
        View in Article
        • Antonelli A.
        • Vismara Fugini A.
        • Tardanico R.
        • Giovanessi L.
        • Zambolin T.
        • Simeone C.
        The percentage of core involved by cancer is the best predictor of insignificant prostate cancer, according to an updated definition (tumor volume up to 2.5 cm3): analysis of a cohort of 210 consecutive patients with low-risk disease.
        Urology. 2014; 83: 28-32
        View in Article
        • Seo J.W.
        • Shin S.J.
        • Taik Oh Y.
        • et al.
        PI-RADS version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: W1-w9
        View in Article
        • 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
        View in Article
        • Vargas H.A.
        • Akin O.
        • Franiel T.
        • et al.
        Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: clinical and MR imaging implications.
        Radiology. 2012; 262: 894-902
        View in Article
        • Hoeks C.M.
        • Hambrock T.
        • Yakar D.
        • et al.
        Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 207-217
        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: March 08, 2019
      Accepted: March 7, 2019
      Received in revised form: February 11, 2019
      Received: October 25, 2018

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.03.004

      Copyright

      © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX