Advertisement

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Provides Limited Incremental Value Over the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Preradical Prostatectomy Nomogram

Published:December 04, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.051

      Objective

      To examine the incremental value of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when used in combination with the currently available preoperative risk stratification tool, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) preradical prostatectomy nomogram.

      Materials and Methods

      We reviewed our institutional database of prostate MRI performed before radical prostatectomy between December 2014 and March 2016 (n = 236). We generated a logistic regression model based on observed final pathology results and the MSKCC nomogram predictions for organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement (LNI) (“MSKCC only”). We then generated a combined regression model incorporating both the MSKCC nomogram prediction with the degree of prostate MRI suspicion (“MSKCC + MRI”). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and the area under the curves (AUCs) were compared.

      Results

      When independently examining the MSKCC nomogram predicted risk and the degree of prostate MRI suspicion, MRI was a predictor for ECE (odds ratio 2.8, P <.01) and LNI (odds ratio 5.6, P = .01). When examining the “MSKCC + MRI” and “MSKCC only” models, the incremental benefit in risk discrimination from the combined model (“MSKCC + MRI”) was not significant for organ-confined disease, ECE, seminal vesicle invasion, or LNI (ΔAUC +0.03, P = .10; ΔAUC +0.03, P = .08; ΔAUC 0.63, P = .63; ΔAUC +0.04, P = .42; respectively).

      Conclusion

      A combined model with prostate MRI and the MSKCC nomogram provides no additional risk discrimination over the MSKCC nomogram-based model alone. Evaluation of prostate MRI as a predictive tool should be performed in combination with, not independent of, these clinical risk stratification models.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pinto P.A.
        • Chung P.H.
        • Rastinehad A.R.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
        J Urol. 2011; 186: 1281-1285
        • Salami S.S.
        • Ben-Levi E.
        • Yaskiv O.
        • et al.
        In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 562-570
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Sonn G.A.
        • Natarajan S.
        • Margolis D.J.
        • et al.
        Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 86-91
        • Truong M.
        • Weinberg E.
        • Holleberg G.
        • et al.
        Institutional learning curve associated with implementation of a MR/US fusion biopsy program using PI-RADS Version 2: factors that influence success.
        Urol Pract. 2016;
        • Volkin D.
        • Turkbey B.
        • Hoang A.N.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: E43-E49
        • Vourganti S.
        • Rastinehad A.
        • Yerram N.K.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 2152-2157
        • Hubanks J.M.
        • Boorjian S.A.
        • Frank I.
        • et al.
        The presence of extracapsular extension is associated with an increased risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for patients with seminal vesicle invasion and negative lymph nodes.
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 26.e21-26.e27
        • Tollefson M.K.
        • Karnes R.J.
        • Rangel L.J.
        • et al.
        The impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer survival following radical prostatectomy.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 1707-1712
        • Eifler J.B.
        • Feng Z.
        • Lin B.M.
        • et al.
        An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011.
        BJU Int. 2013; 111: 22-29
        • Ohori M.
        • Kattan M.W.
        • Koh H.
        • et al.
        Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2004; 171: 1844-1849
        • Cerantola Y.
        • Valerio M.
        • Kawkabani Marchini A.
        • et al.
        Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension?.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2013; 7: E699-E703
        • Feng T.S.
        • Sharif-Afshar A.R.
        • Smith S.C.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 33: E15-E22
        • Roethke M.C.
        • Lichy M.P.
        • Kniess M.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy.
        World J Urol. 2013; 31: 1111-1116
        • Somford D.M.
        • Hamoen E.H.
        • Futterer J.J.
        • et al.
        The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 1728-1734
        • Augustin H.
        • Fritz G.A.
        • Ehammer T.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables.
        Acta Radiol. 2009; 50: 562-569
        • Gupta R.T.
        • Faridi K.F.
        • Singh A.A.
        • et al.
        Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
        Urol Oncol. 2014; 32: 1292-1299
        • Gupta R.T.
        • Brown A.F.
        • Silverman R.K.
        • et al.
        Can radiologic staging with multiparametric MRI enhance the accuracy of the Partin tables in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer?.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 207: 87-95
        • Feng T.S.
        • Sharif-Afshar A.R.
        • Wu J.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric MRI improves accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2015; 86: 332-337
        • Wang R.S.
        • Kim E.H.
        • Vetter J.M.
        • et al.
        Determination of the role of negative magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in clinical practice: is biopsy still necessary?.
        Urology. 2017; 102: 190-197
        • Weinreb J.C.
        • Barentsz J.O.
        • Choyke P.L.
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
        • Polanec S.
        • Helbich T.H.
        • Bickel H.
        • et al.
        Head-to-head comparison if PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1.
        Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85: 1125-1131
        • Edge S.B.
        • Byrd D.R.
        • Compton C.C.
        • et al.
        AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.
        7th ed. Springer, France2010
        • Ruprecht O.
        • Weisser P.
        • Bodelle B.
        • Ackermann H.
        • Vogl T.J.
        MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy.
        Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81: 456-460
        • Mullerad M.
        • Hricak H.
        • Wang L.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging.
        Radiology. 2004; 232: 140-146
        • Morlacco A.
        • Sharma V.
        • Viers B.R.
        • et al.
        The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer staging before radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 701-704
        • Pak S.
        • Park S.
        • Ryu J.
        • et al.
        Preoperative factors predictive of posterolateral extracapsular extension after radical prostatectomy.
        Korean J Urol. 2013; 54: 824-829
        • McGrath S.
        • Christidis D.
        • Perera M.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer biomarkers: are we hitting the mark?.
        Prostate Int. 2016; 4: 130-135
        • Kim E.H.
        • Weaver J.K.
        • Shetty A.S.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging provides added value to the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator for patients with estimated risk of high-grade prostate cancer less than or equal to 10.
        Urology. 2016; ([Epub ahead of print])