Three-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a complementary tool to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of aggressive prostate cancer at 3.0T.
1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H MRSI)
Gleason
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)
Prostate cancer
intermediate risks
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
spectroscopy
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
25
03
2021
accepted:
13
04
2021
entrez:
3
8
2021
pubmed:
4
8
2021
medline:
4
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The limitations of the assessment of tumor aggressiveness by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and biopsies suggest that the diagnostic algorithm could be improved by quantitative measurements in some chosen indications. We assessed the tumor high-risk predictive performance of 3.0 Tesla (3.0T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) combined with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic sequences (NMR-S) in order to show that the metabolic analysis could bring out an evocative result for the aggressive form of prostate cancer. We conducted a retrospective study of 26 patients (mean age, 62.4 years) who had surgery for prostate cancer between 2009 and 2016 after pre-therapeutic assessment with 3.0T mp-MRI and NMR-S. Groups within the intermediate range of the D'Amico risk classification were divided into two categories, low risk (n=20) and high risk (n=6), according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2-3 limit. Histoprognostic discordances within various risk groups were compared with the corresponding predictive MRI values. The performance of predictive models was assessed based on sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. After prostatectomy, histological analysis reclassified 18 patients as high-risk, including 16 who were T3 MRI grade, of whom 13 (81.3%) were found to be pT3. Among the patients who had cT1 or cT2 digital rectal examinations, the T3 MRI factor multiplied by 8.7 [odds ratio (OR), 8.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-56.2; P=0.024] the relative risk of being pT3 and by 5.8 (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 0.95-35.7; P=0.05) the relative risk of being pGleason (pGS) > GS-prostate biopsy. Spectroscopic data showed that the choline concentration was significantly higher (P=0.001) in aggressive disease. The predictive model of tumor aggressiveness combining mp-MRI plus NMR-S was better than the mp-MRI model alone (AUC, 0.95
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The limitations of the assessment of tumor aggressiveness by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and biopsies suggest that the diagnostic algorithm could be improved by quantitative measurements in some chosen indications. We assessed the tumor high-risk predictive performance of 3.0 Tesla (3.0T) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) combined with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic sequences (NMR-S) in order to show that the metabolic analysis could bring out an evocative result for the aggressive form of prostate cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study of 26 patients (mean age, 62.4 years) who had surgery for prostate cancer between 2009 and 2016 after pre-therapeutic assessment with 3.0T mp-MRI and NMR-S. Groups within the intermediate range of the D'Amico risk classification were divided into two categories, low risk (n=20) and high risk (n=6), according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2-3 limit. Histoprognostic discordances within various risk groups were compared with the corresponding predictive MRI values. The performance of predictive models was assessed based on sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After prostatectomy, histological analysis reclassified 18 patients as high-risk, including 16 who were T3 MRI grade, of whom 13 (81.3%) were found to be pT3. Among the patients who had cT1 or cT2 digital rectal examinations, the T3 MRI factor multiplied by 8.7 [odds ratio (OR), 8.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-56.2; P=0.024] the relative risk of being pT3 and by 5.8 (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 0.95-35.7; P=0.05) the relative risk of being pGleason (pGS) > GS-prostate biopsy. Spectroscopic data showed that the choline concentration was significantly higher (P=0.001) in aggressive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The predictive model of tumor aggressiveness combining mp-MRI plus NMR-S was better than the mp-MRI model alone (AUC, 0.95
Identifiants
pubmed: 34341747
doi: 10.21037/qims-21-331
pii: qims-11-08-3749
pmc: PMC8245930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3749-3766Informations de copyright
2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-331). Dr. RL serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;109(8):830-5
pubmed: 24610744
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Sep;44(9):3185-3187
pubmed: 31243485
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:590638
pubmed: 25215284
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Jan;35(1):166-73
pubmed: 21960013
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Aug;38(2):312-9
pubmed: 23238968
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015 Oct;5(5):754-64
pubmed: 26682144
Invest Radiol. 2019 Aug;54(8):485-493
pubmed: 30985480
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018 Oct 1;8(10):
pubmed: 29229664
Yonsei Med J. 2012 May;53(3):550-6
pubmed: 22476999
NMR Biomed. 2017 Dec;30(12):
pubmed: 28961382
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 May;12(5):686-718
pubmed: 24812137
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0165730
pubmed: 27832096
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Dec;46(6):1054-8
pubmed: 11746568
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
Urology. 1995 Mar;45(3):459-66
pubmed: 7533458
BJU Int. 2007 Apr;99(4):786-93
pubmed: 17223922
J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):2019-24
pubmed: 7693985
Eur Urol. 2009 Apr;55(4):801-14
pubmed: 19185981
Eur Urol. 2011 Jun;59(6):962-77
pubmed: 21367519
J Radiol. 2010 Feb;91(2):207-12
pubmed: 20389267
Radiologe. 2003 Jun;43(6):464-73
pubmed: 12827261
Prog Urol. 2014 Feb;24(2):102-7
pubmed: 24485079
World J Urol. 2016 May;34(5):649-56
pubmed: 26407583
NMR Biomed. 2014 Jan;27(1):100-11
pubmed: 23940096
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Feb;13(1):e27-30
pubmed: 25081324
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jun;49(6):1694-1703
pubmed: 30575184
Invest Radiol. 2017 Oct;52(10):640-646
pubmed: 28632688
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74
pubmed: 9749478
BJU Int. 2013 Nov;112 Suppl 2:6-20
pubmed: 24127671
APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5
pubmed: 27150257
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017 Dec;69(6):567-578
pubmed: 28488844
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Apr;98(14):e14891
pubmed: 30946315
Acad Radiol. 2008 Sep;15(9):1118-25
pubmed: 18692752
BJU Int. 2009 Jun;103(12):1647-54
pubmed: 19154461
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014 Jul-Aug;95(7-8):743-52
pubmed: 25043317
Clin Biochem. 2012 Dec;45(18):1548-53
pubmed: 22921309
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 26;13(3):
pubmed: 33530520
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jun;79(11):3523-6
pubmed: 6954498
Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jan;55:93-102
pubmed: 30176373
Radiology. 1999 Nov;213(2):481-8
pubmed: 10551230
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 26;8(1):4997
pubmed: 29581441
Mol Med Rep. 2014 May;9(5):1989-97
pubmed: 24584266
Eur Radiol. 2012 Oct;22(10):2201-10
pubmed: 22661019
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 1;21(11):2163-72
pubmed: 12775742
Int J Urol. 2015 Jan;22(1):70-3
pubmed: 25115632
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Oct;74(4):915-24
pubmed: 25264976
Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):804-14
pubmed: 15734935
Invest Radiol. 2014 Jun;49(6):421-30
pubmed: 24566292
Acta Radiol. 2015 Jan;56(1):121-8
pubmed: 24504488
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Aug;23(4):243-57
pubmed: 25099562
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 23;8(4):e62375
pubmed: 23626811
Radiol Bras. 2017 Sep-Oct;50(5):299-307
pubmed: 29085163
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
Adv Urol. 2012;2012:374805
pubmed: 22216026