mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers: Our experience in 950 cases
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.2.139
Accepted: March 14, 2021
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Introduction: The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men with mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 diagnosed by affiliated radiology centers vs radiological reference center was evaluated.
Materials and methods: From January 2017 to December 2020, 950 men (median age 64 years) underwent mpMRI for abnormal PSA values (median 6.3 ng/ml). Among the 950 patients who underwent mpMRI 500 were evaluated by a reference center and 450 by outpatient radiological affiliated centers. All the mpMRI index lesions characterized by a PI-RADS 3 underwent targeted cores combined with extended prostate biopsy. Two radiologists of the radiological reference center revised all the mpMRI lesions 3.
Results: Overall, 361/950 (38%) patients had a mpMRI lesion PI-RADS score 3: 120/500 cases (24%) vs 241/450 cases (53.5%) were diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers. The detection rate for cT1c csPCa was equal to 26.7% (35/120 cases) vs 16.6% (40/241 cases) in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions diagnosed in the reference vs the affiliated radiological centers (p < 0.05). Among the 241 PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by affiliated radiological centers 86/241 (35.7%) and 36/241 (15%) were downgraded (PI-RADS scores < 3) and upgraded (PI-RADS score 4) by the dedicated radiologists of the reference center.
Conclusions: In our series, about 35% and 15% of PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by affiliated radiological centers were downgraded and upgraded when revised by experencied radiologists, therefore a second opinion is mandatory especially in men enrolled in active surveillance protocols in whom mpMRI is recommended to reduce the number of scheduled repeated prostate biopsies.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, and PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1767-1777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Pepe P, Pepe G, Pepe L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric MRI in 800 men submitted to repeat prostate biopsy: results of a public health model. Anticancer Res. 2018; 38:2395-2398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12489
Mottet N, Cornford P, van der Bergh RCN, et al. EAU Oncology guideline: Prostate Cancer. 2020.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Accuracy of 3 Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI in diagnosing prostate cancer at repeat biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014; 4:336-339 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.4.336
Pepe P, Pepe L, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. Which prostate biopsy in men enrolled in Active Surveillance? Experience in 110 men submitted to scheduled three-years transperineal saturation biopsy combined with fusion targeted cores Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021; S1558-7673(21)00027-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.01.004
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Is it time to perform only MRI targeted biopsy? Our experience in 1032 men submitted to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018; 200:774-778, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, and Pennisi M. Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol 2016; 34:1249-1453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2017; 51:260-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1313310
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Detection rate for significant cancer at confirmatory biopsy in men enrolled in active surveillance protocol: 20 cores vs 30 cores vs vs MRI/TRUS FUSION prostate biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016; 88:300-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.4.300
Steinkohl F, Gruber L, Bektic J, et al. Retrospective analysis of the development of PIRADS 3 lesions over time: when is a follow-up MRI reasonable? World J Urol 2018; 36:367-373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2135-0
Hansen NL, Koo BC, Warren AY, et al. Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection. Eur J Radiol. 2017; 95:307-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.017
Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7:70-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.31
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, and Pennisi M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion targeted biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017; e33-e36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, and START Consortium. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:544-552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
Dindo D, Demartines N and Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 patients and results of survey. Ann Surgery. 2004; 2:205-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016; 196:1613-1618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
Westhoff N, Siegel FP, Hausmann D, et al. Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: an ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms. World J Urol. 2017; 35:1015-1022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1967-3
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. 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 prostatespecific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:570-578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
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. 2017; 389:815-822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 ccategory cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 6:463-478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.06.014
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients? Prostate Int. 2020; 8:167-172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.003
Wu X, Reinikainen P, Vanhanen A, et al. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusion-weighted MR Imaging and Gleason score in prostate cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017; 98:63-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.009
Kim TH, Kim CK, Park BK, et al. Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;E377-E382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3896
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, et al. The use of muktiparametric resonance imaging for follow-up patientes included in Active Suirvellance Protocol, can PSA density discriminate patients at different risk of reclassification? Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 2020; 18:e698-e704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI vs Select MDX accuracy in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa in men enrolled in Active Surveillance. In Vivo 2020; 34: 393-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11786
Pepe P, Davide D’Urso, Garufi A, et al. Multiparametric MRI apparaent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In Vivo 2017; 31:415-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11075
Lourenço M, Pissarra P, Vieira D, et al. Lesion location agreement between prostatic multiparametric magnetic resonance, cognitive fusion biopsy and radical prostatectomy piece. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 91:218-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.4.218
Stanzione A, Creta M, Imbriaco M, et al. Attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: A national survey among Italian urologists. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:291-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
