Local staging of prostate cancer with multiparametric-MRI: accuracy and inter-reader agreement.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
prostate cancer
staging
Journal
Medicine and pharmacy reports
ISSN: 2668-0572
Titre abrégé: Med Pharm Rep
Pays: Romania
ID NLM: 101742144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
08
06
2019
revised:
28
10
2019
accepted:
18
11
2019
entrez:
2
6
2020
pubmed:
2
6
2020
medline:
2
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The accuracy of prostate cancer local staging at the time of diagnosis directly influences patient prognosis and treatment. To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability of mp-MRI in local staging of prostate cancer, using the histopathologic findings at prostatectomy as the reference standard. Fifty patients (mean age 64.4±7.2) with biopsy confirmed prostate cancer were included in this prospective study. All patients were examined with mp-MRI before radical prostatectomy and images were read by three independent radiologists. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy rate were calculated and compared for all three readers. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using Kappa Cohen coefficient of agreement. The overall Se, Sp, PPV, NPV and accuracy rates for detecting extraprostatic tumor extension (EPE) ranged between 76.5-94.1%, 45.5-84.9%, 43.8-76.2%, 83.3-96.6% and 58-88%. For evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), the overall Se, Sp, PPV, NPV and accuracy rates ranged between 57.1-85.7%, 86.1-97.7%, 40.0-85.7%, 92.5-97.7% and 82-96%, respectively. The overall Kappa Cohen coefficient of agreement varied between 0.349-0.638 for EPE and between 0.507-0.668 for SVI. Our results showed that 1.5T mp-MRI is a reliable method for local staging of prostate cancer, with good diagnostic performance in detecting EPE and SVI. The overall interobserver agreement rates between readers with the same level of experience in prostate MRI ranged from fair to good in the evaluation of EPE and from moderate to good for the assessment of SVI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The accuracy of prostate cancer local staging at the time of diagnosis directly influences patient prognosis and treatment.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability of mp-MRI in local staging of prostate cancer, using the histopathologic findings at prostatectomy as the reference standard.
METHODS
METHODS
Fifty patients (mean age 64.4±7.2) with biopsy confirmed prostate cancer were included in this prospective study. All patients were examined with mp-MRI before radical prostatectomy and images were read by three independent radiologists. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy rate were calculated and compared for all three readers. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using Kappa Cohen coefficient of agreement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall Se, Sp, PPV, NPV and accuracy rates for detecting extraprostatic tumor extension (EPE) ranged between 76.5-94.1%, 45.5-84.9%, 43.8-76.2%, 83.3-96.6% and 58-88%. For evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), the overall Se, Sp, PPV, NPV and accuracy rates ranged between 57.1-85.7%, 86.1-97.7%, 40.0-85.7%, 92.5-97.7% and 82-96%, respectively. The overall Kappa Cohen coefficient of agreement varied between 0.349-0.638 for EPE and between 0.507-0.668 for SVI.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that 1.5T mp-MRI is a reliable method for local staging of prostate cancer, with good diagnostic performance in detecting EPE and SVI. The overall interobserver agreement rates between readers with the same level of experience in prostate MRI ranged from fair to good in the evaluation of EPE and from moderate to good for the assessment of SVI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32478321
doi: 10.15386/mpr-1390
pii: cm-93-150
pmc: PMC7243891
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
150-161Références
J Urol. 2005 Dec;174(6):2158-63
pubmed: 16280755
Yonsei Med J. 2012 May;53(3):550-6
pubmed: 22476999
Radiology. 2006 Mar;238(3):929-37
pubmed: 16424250
Eur Urol. 2011 Jun;59(6):962-77
pubmed: 21367519
Urol Oncol. 2013 May;31(4):448-54
pubmed: 21775172
Radiology. 2004 Jul;232(1):133-9
pubmed: 15166321
J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 1):528-34
pubmed: 11792912
J Urol. 2013 Nov;190(5):1728-34
pubmed: 23680307
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jan;188(1):84-90
pubmed: 17179349
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):46-66
pubmed: 21931141
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):233-45
pubmed: 26215604
Radiology. 2013 Jun;267(3):797-806
pubmed: 23440325
Can Urol Assoc J. 2010 Aug;4(4):257-62
pubmed: 20694103
Int J Urol. 2008 Jun;15(6):520-3
pubmed: 18422574
Rofo. 2014 Aug;186(8):795-802
pubmed: 24557601
Eur Radiol. 2012 Oct;22(10):2201-10
pubmed: 22661019
BJU Int. 2013 Jun;111(7):1037-45
pubmed: 23464904
Clin Transl Oncol. 2014 Nov;16(11):993-9
pubmed: 24865628
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Dec;14(6):e617-e622
pubmed: 27188968
J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2054-60
pubmed: 23791890
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566