Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Cancer Imaging - 2019
Lili Xu1, Gumuyang Zhang1, Bing Shi1, Yanhan Liu1, Tingting Zou1, Weigang Yan2, Yu Xiao3, Huadan Xue1, Feng Feng1, Jing Lei1, Zhengyu Jin1, Hao Sun1
1Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shuaifuyuan No.1, Wangfujing Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China
2Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
3Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China

Tóm tắt

Abstract Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and to explore the application value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI in prostate imaging. Methods and materials This study retrospectively enrolled 235 patients with suspected PCa in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017, and all lesions were histopathologically confirmed. The lesions were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS V2). The bpMRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC]) and mpMRI (T2WI, DWI/ADC and DCE) scores were recorded to plot the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for each method were calculated and compared. The patients were further stratified according to bpMRI scores (bpMRI ≥3, and bpMRI = 3, 4, 5) to analyse the difference in DCE MRI between PCa and non-PCa lesions (as well as between csPCa and non-csPCa). Results The AUC values for the bpMRI and mpMRI protocols for PCa were comparable (0.790 [0.732–0.840] and 0.791 [0.733–0.841], respectively). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of bpMRI for PCa were 76.2, 79.5, 72.6, 75.8, and 76.6%, respectively, and the values for mpMRI were 77.4, 84.4, 69.9, 75.2, and 80.6%, respectively. The AUC values for the bpMRI and mpMRI protocols for the diagnosis of csPCa were similar (0.781 [0.722–0.832] and 0.779 [0.721–0.831], respectively). The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of bpMRI for csPCa were 74.0, 83.8, 66.9, 64.8, and 85.0%, respectively; and 73.6, 87.9, 63.2, 63.2, and 87.8%, respectively, for mpMRI. For patients with bpMRI scores ≥3, positive DCE results were more common in PCa and csPCa lesions (both P = 0.001). Further stratification analysis showed that for patients with a bpMRI score = 4, PCa and csPCa lesions were more likely to have positive DCE results (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI is comparable with that of mpMRI in the detection of PCa and the identification of csPCa. DCE MRI is helpful in further identifying PCa and csPCa lesions in patients with bpMRI ≥3, especially bpMRI = 4, which may be conducive to achieving a more accurate PCa risk stratification. Rather than omitting DCE, we think further comprehensive studies are required for prostate MRI.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30.

Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32.

Teoh JYC, Hirai HW, Ho JMW, Chan FCH, Tsoi KKF, Ng CF. Global incidence of prostate cancer in developing and developed countries with changing age structures. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0221775.

Turkbey B, Brown AM, Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(4):326–36.

Ueno Y, Tamada T, Bist V, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Current role in prostate cancer management. Int J Urol. 2016;23(7):550–7.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.

Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (Detective study). Eur Urol. 2019;76(6):790–813.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cocozza S, et al. Biparametric 3T magnetic resonance imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naive patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2? Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(12):2269–74.

Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? Radiology. 2015;275(2):448–57.

Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D'Andrea A, et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI with non-endorectal coil at 3T in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2017;37(3):1263–71.

Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated Biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493–505.

Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018:10117–23.

Girouin N, Mege-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, et al. Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol. 2007;17(6):1498–509.

Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Investig Radiol. 2007;42(12):842–7.

Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2. Radiology. 2017;285(3):859–69.

Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(4):e1–7.

Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol. 2015;33(7):1023–30.

Iwazawa J, Mitani T, Sassa S, Ohue S. Prostate cancer detection with MRI: is dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging? Diagn Interv Radiol. 2011;17(3):243–8.

Rud E, Baco E. Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40. Is contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging really necessary when searching for prostate cancer? Reply. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):E136.

Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, et al. Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco’s Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40 Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):E137-E8.

Junker D, Steinkohl F, Fritz V, et al. Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations? World J Urol. 2019;37(4):691–9.

Alabousi M, Salameh JP, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naive patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2019;124(2):209–20.

Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, Chen L, Li J, Peng T. Diagnostic performance of Biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(2):369–78.

Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH, Moon MH. Head-to-head comparison between biparametric and multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(5):W226–W41.

Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, Li Q, Feng Z, Wang L. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(2):357–65.

Monni F, Fontanella P, Grasso A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69(6):567–78.

Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Campbell N, Gaing B, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(3):W266–72.

Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology. 2017;283(1):119–29.

Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):78–94.

Sanz-Requena R, Marti-Bonmati L, Perez-Martinez R, Garcia-Marti G. Dynamic contrast-enhanced case-control analysis in 3T MRI of prostate cancer can help to characterize tumor aggressiveness. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(11):2119–26.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Cancer Imaging

Thông tin tác giả