Tumor contact length of prostate cancer determined by a three-dimensional method on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts extraprostatic extension and biochemical recurrence.
biochemical recurrence
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer
tumor contact length
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
29
06
2020
accepted:
03
06
2021
pubmed:
7
7
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
6
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the clinical benefit of tumor contact length as a predictor of pathological extraprostatic extension and biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing prostatectomy. A total of 91 patients who underwent 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before prostatectomy from April 2014 to July 2019 were included. A total of 94 prostate cancer foci were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated maximum tumor contact length, which was determined to be the maximum value in the three-dimensional directions, as a predictor of pathological extraprostatic extension and biochemical recurrence. A total of 19 lesions (20.2%) had positive pathological extraprostatic extension. Areas under the curves showed maximum tumor contact length to be a significantly better parameter to predict pathological extraprostatic extension than the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (P = 0.002), tumor maximal diameter (P = 0.001), prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.020), Gleason score (P < 0.001), and clinical T stage (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed maximum tumor contact length (P = 0.003) to be an independent risk factor for predicting biochemical recurrence. We classified the patients using preoperative factors (prostate-specific antigen >10, Gleason score >3 + 4 and maximum tumor contact length >10 mm) into three groups: (i) high-risk group (patients having all factors); (ii) intermediate-risk group (patients having two of three factors); and (iii) low-risk group (patients having only one or none of the factors). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the high-risk group had significantly worse biochemical recurrence than the intermediate-risk group (P = 0.042) and low-risk group (P < 0.001). Our findings suggest that maximum tumor contact length is an independent predictor of pathological extraprostatic extension and biochemical recurrence. A risk stratification system using prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score and maximum tumor contact length might be useful for preoperative assessment of prostate cancer patients.
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1012-1018Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
van Neste L, Herman JG, Otto G, Bigley JW, Epstein JI, van Criekinge W. The epigenetic promise for prostate cancer diagnosis. Prostate 2012; 72: 1248-61.
Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B, Ackermann H, Vogl TJ. MRI of the prostate: Interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012; 81: 456-60.
Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2016; 70: 211-3.
Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al. Prostate cancer: Interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology 2015; 277: 741-50.
Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Lee HM, Cho SW. Prostate cancer: Role of pretreatment multiparametric 3-T MRI in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202: W459-W465.
Zhang Y-D, Wu C-J, Bao M-L et al. MR-based prognostic nomogram for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017; 45: 586-96.
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 41-9.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40.
Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2015; 67: 1112-21.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2016; 70: 233-45.
Lee SH, Koo KC, Lee DH, Chung BH. Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Int. 2015; 3: 127-31.
Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, Babaian JR. Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J. Urol. 1998; 159: 1251-9.
Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2015; 193: 466-72.
Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: assessment at an optimal threshold. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016; 43: 990-7.
Kongnyuy M, Sidana A, George AK et al. Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: a potential biomarker for staging and prognosis. Urol. Oncol. 2017; 35: e1-30.e8.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1 c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22: 746-57.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2016; 40: 244-52.
Takeuchi N, Sakamoto S, Nishiyama A et al. Biparametric Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version2 and International Society of Urological Pathology grade predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 2018; 16: e817-e829.
Alessi S, Pricolo P, Summers P et al. Low PI-RADS assessment category excludes extraprostatic extension (≥pT3a) of prostate cancer: a histology-validated study including 301 operated patients. Eur. Radiol. 2019; 29: 5478-87.
Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC et al. Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with PI-RADS version 2 in prostate cancers: initial results. Eur. Radiol. 2016; 26: 2502-9.
Caglic I, Povalej Brzan P, Warren AY, Bratt O, Shah N, Barrett T. Defining the incremental value of 3D T2-weighted imaging in the assessment of prostate cancer extracapsular extension. Eur. Radiol. 2019; 29: 5488-97.
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2005; 294: 433-9.
Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 910-4.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-74.
Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H. Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J. Urol. 2015; 33: 1651-9.
Gosselaar C, Kranse R, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schröder FH. The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 2008; 68: 985-93.
Kuligowska E, Barish MA, Fenlon HM, Blake M. Predictors of prostate carcinoma: accuracy of gray-scale and color Doppler US and serum markers. Radiology 2001; 220: 757-64.