Role of the Prostate Imaging Quality PI-QUAL Score for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Image Quality in Pathological Upstaging After Radical Prostatectomy: A Multicentre European Study.
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
accepted:
15
11
2022
entrez:
5
1
2023
pubmed:
6
1
2023
medline:
6
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Increasing use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has come with heterogeneity in image quality. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is under scrutiny to assess its usefulness in predicting clinical outcomes. To compare upstaging of localized disease on mpMRI (mrT2) to locally invasive disease in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (≥pT3a) in relation to PI-QUAL. Patients treated with RP between 2015 and 2020 who underwent 1.5-3-T mpMRI within 6 mo before surgery and had systematic and mpMRI-US targeted biopsies were included. mpMRI scans were retrospectively assigned a PI-QUAL score, and prospectively acquired Prostate Imaging-Recording and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (version 2.0 or 2.1) were used. PI-QUAL scores were categorized as nondiagnostic (PI-QUAL <3), sufficient (PI-QUAL 3), or optimal (PI-QUAL >3). We assessed the relationship between the PI-QUAL score and upstaging using multivariate logistic regression. mpMRI, clinical, and pathological findings were compared using χ We identified 351 patients, of whom 40 (11.4%) had PI-QUAL <3, 57 (16.3%) had PI-QUAL 3, and 254 (72.3%) had PI-QUAL >3 scores. The distribution of PI-QUAL <3 (0-33.6%; In comparison to PI-QUAL ≥3, PI-QUAL <3 was significantly associated with a higher rate of upstaging from organ-confined disease on mpMRI to locally advanced disease on pathology, lower detection rates for PI-RADS 5 lesions and extraprostatic extension, and a lower number of suspicious lesions. Poor image quality for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate is associated with underestimation of the stage of prostate cancer.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Increasing use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has come with heterogeneity in image quality. The Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score is under scrutiny to assess its usefulness in predicting clinical outcomes.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To compare upstaging of localized disease on mpMRI (mrT2) to locally invasive disease in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (≥pT3a) in relation to PI-QUAL.
Design setting and participants
UNASSIGNED
Patients treated with RP between 2015 and 2020 who underwent 1.5-3-T mpMRI within 6 mo before surgery and had systematic and mpMRI-US targeted biopsies were included. mpMRI scans were retrospectively assigned a PI-QUAL score, and prospectively acquired Prostate Imaging-Recording and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (version 2.0 or 2.1) were used. PI-QUAL scores were categorized as nondiagnostic (PI-QUAL <3), sufficient (PI-QUAL 3), or optimal (PI-QUAL >3).
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
UNASSIGNED
We assessed the relationship between the PI-QUAL score and upstaging using multivariate logistic regression. mpMRI, clinical, and pathological findings were compared using χ
Results and limitations
UNASSIGNED
We identified 351 patients, of whom 40 (11.4%) had PI-QUAL <3, 57 (16.3%) had PI-QUAL 3, and 254 (72.3%) had PI-QUAL >3 scores. The distribution of PI-QUAL <3 (0-33.6%;
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
In comparison to PI-QUAL ≥3, PI-QUAL <3 was significantly associated with a higher rate of upstaging from organ-confined disease on mpMRI to locally advanced disease on pathology, lower detection rates for PI-RADS 5 lesions and extraprostatic extension, and a lower number of suspicious lesions.
Patient summary
UNASSIGNED
Poor image quality for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate is associated with underestimation of the stage of prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36601048
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.013
pii: S2666-1683(22)02701-X
pmc: PMC9806708
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
94-101Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Références
Clin Radiol. 2019 Nov;74(11):894.e19-894.e25
pubmed: 31296337
Eur J Radiol. 2022 May;150:110267
pubmed: 35325773
Eur J Radiol. 2022 Sep;154:110431
pubmed: 35803101
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Feb;25(2):256-263
pubmed: 34230616
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Radiology. 2019 Mar;290(3):709-719
pubmed: 30667329
Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 10;12(1):13603
pubmed: 35948575
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5404-5416
pubmed: 32424596
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):233-45
pubmed: 26215604
Acad Radiol. 2021 Feb;28(2):199-207
pubmed: 32143993
Eur Radiol. 2022 Feb;32(2):879-889
pubmed: 34327583
Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Apr 23;12(5):
pubmed: 35626214
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Oct;3(5):615-619
pubmed: 32646850
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Eur Radiol. 2022 Jul;32(7):4942-4953
pubmed: 35290508
Br J Radiol. 2022 May 01;95(1133):20211372
pubmed: 35179971
Clin Imaging. 2020 Jan;59(1):1-7
pubmed: 31715511