Abbreviated Versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate-Cancer Patients: Comparison of Accuracy and Clinical Utility as a Decisional Tool.

abbreviated MRI protocol active surveillance multiparametric MRI prostate MRI prostate cancer

Journal

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 02 12 2022
revised: 30 01 2023
accepted: 02 02 2023
entrez: 25 2 2023
pubmed: 26 2 2023
medline: 26 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

(1) Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between full multiparametric contrast-enhanced prostate MRI (mpMRI) and abbreviated dual-sequence prostate MRI (dsMRI) in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) who were candidates for active surveillance. (2) Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of low-risk PCa in the previous 6 months had a mpMRI scan prior to a saturation biopsy and a subsequent MRI cognitive transperineal targeted biopsy (for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). The dsMRI images were obtained from the mpMRI protocol. The images were selected by a study coordinator and assigned to two readers blinded to the biopsy results (R1 and R2). Inter-reader agreement for clinically significant cancer was evaluated with Cohen's kappa. The dsMRI and mpMRI accuracy was calculated for each reader (R1 and R2). The clinical utility of the dsMRI and mpMRI was investigated with a decision-analysis model. (3) Results: The dsMRI sensitivity and specificity were 83.3%, 31.0%, 75.0%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The mpMRI sensitivity and specificity were 91.7%, 31.0%, 83.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The inter-reader agreement for the detection of csPCa was moderate (k = 0.53) and good (k = 0.63) for dsMRI and mpMRI, respectively. The AUC values for the dsMRI were 0.77 and 0.62 for the R1 and R2, respectively. The AUC values for the mpMRI were 0.79 and 0.66 for R1 and R2, respectively. No AUC differences were found between the two MRI protocols. At any risk threshold, the mpMRI showed a higher net benefit than the dsMRI for both R1 and R2. (4) Conclusions: The dsMRI and mpMRI showed similar diagnostic accuracy for csPCa in male candidates for active surveillance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36832066
pii: diagnostics13040578
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13040578
pmc: PMC9955028
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):632-639
pubmed: 27639713
Urol Clin North Am. 2014 May;41(2):299-313
pubmed: 24725491
Eur Urol. 2019 Nov;76(5):574-581
pubmed: 31167748
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):124-132
pubmed: 32232921
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006 Aug;194(8):557-64
pubmed: 16909062
Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74
pubmed: 17099194
Diagn Progn Res. 2019 Oct 04;3:18
pubmed: 31592444
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):721-722
pubmed: 30358932
Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):921-5
pubmed: 21131034
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):640-646
pubmed: 27613356
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5404-5416
pubmed: 32424596
Urol Oncol. 2013 Aug;31(6):739-43
pubmed: 21816639
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):479-505
pubmed: 31085757
Cent European J Urol. 2022;75(3):277-283
pubmed: 36381166
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jan 2;168(1):1-9
pubmed: 29181514
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
Eur Radiol Exp. 2019 Jan 28;3(1):5
pubmed: 30693407
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
BJU Int. 2018 Dec;122(6):946-958
pubmed: 29679430
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266
pubmed: 28336078
Radiology. 2017 Sep;284(3):725-736
pubmed: 28346073
J Urol. 2022 Oct;208(4):830-837
pubmed: 36082555
BJU Int. 2019 Nov;124(5):730-737
pubmed: 30740876
Clin Radiol. 2017 Jan;72(1):23-32
pubmed: 27726850
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Radiology. 2017 Nov;285(2):493-505
pubmed: 28727544
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):847-854
pubmed: 30807218
Urology. 2012 Nov;80(5):1070-4
pubmed: 23107398
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):357-365
pubmed: 30512996
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):627-36
pubmed: 25511988
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jul 10;29(20):2795-800
pubmed: 21632511

Auteurs

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.

Silvio Maresca (S)

Department of Medicine, Institute of Radiology, University of Udine, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, 33100 Udine, Italy.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.

Iliana Bednarova (I)

Department of Breast Radiology, Veneto Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, 35128 Padua, Italy.

Gianmarco Randazzo (G)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.

Giovanni Basso (G)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.

Giuseppe Reitano (G)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.

Gianluca Giannarini (G)

Urology Unit, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, 33100 Udine, Italy.

Chiara Zuiani (C)

Department of Medicine, Institute of Radiology, University of Udine, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, 33100 Udine, Italy.

Rossano Girometti (R)

Department of Medicine, Institute of Radiology, University of Udine, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, 33100 Udine, Italy.

Classifications MeSH