Post Prostatectomy Pathologic Findings of Patients With Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer and no Significant PI-RADS Lesions on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Published:September 15, 2020DOI:



      We present postprostatectomy pathology results from a series of prostate cancer (Pca) Gleason grade group ≥2 patients who did not have findings suggestive of cancer on preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).


      We performed an institutional retrospective study of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations done from October 2015 to February 2018. We identified patients who underwent prostatectomy for Pca Gleason ≥3 + 4 diagnosed on prostate biopsy with no associated MRI findings suggestive of malignancy and analyzed their postprostatectomy pathologic findings and MRI imaging results.


      At our institution, 850 men with Pca received MRI between 2015 and 2018, and 156/850 patients received robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Thirty-three patients (33/156 = 21%) had negative MRI for PIRAD 3 or greater but had a biopsy showing significant Pca. Their mean (range) age was 62.7 (50-86) years. Their median (interquartile range) PSA, and PSA density were, 4.6 (3.7) ng/mL and 0.12 (0.05) ng/mL/cm2, respectively; all not significantly different from patients with visible lesions on MRI who underwent surgery. On post prostatectomy pathology, 27/33 (82%) men had Pca Gleason score 7 or greater. The most common pattern was infiltrative growth with cancer glands intermingling between benign glands.


      We describe the pathologic and imaging findings in an extensive series of men with clinically significant Pca with no significant lesions on preoperative MRI. Our results support the importance of patient counseling on the risk of missing significant Pca on MRI in isolation from other clinical variables.
      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 to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Sonn GA
        • Fan RE
        • Ghanouni P
        • Wang NN
        • Brooks JD
        • Loening AM
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2019; 5: 592-599
        • Westphalen AC
        • McCulloch CE
        • Anaokar JM
        • Arora S
        • Barashi NS
        • Barentsz JO
        • et al.
        Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel.
        Radiology. 2020; 296: 76-84
        • Vargas HA
        • Hotker AM
        • Goldman DA
        • Moskowitz CS
        • Gondo T
        • Matsumoto K
        • et al.
        Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference.
        Eur Radiol. 2016; 26: 1606-1612
        • de Rooij M
        • Hamoen EH
        • Futterer JJ
        • Barentsz JO
        • Rovers MM
        Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 343-351
        • Thompson JE
        • van Leeuwen PJ
        • Moses D
        • Shnier R
        • Brenner P
        • Delprado W
        • et al.
        The diagnostic Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1428-1435
        • Fulgham PF
        • Rukstalis DB
        • Turkbey IB
        • Rubenstein JN
        • Taneja S
        • Carroll PR
        • et al.
        AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2017; 198: 832-838
        • Ginsburg KB
        • Arcot R
        • Qi J
        • Linsell SM
        • Kaye DR
        • George AK
        • et al.
        Confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging with or without biopsy impacts decision making in newly diagnosed favorable risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 923-928
        • Filson CP
        • Natarajan S
        • Margolis DJ
        • Huang J
        • Lieu P
        • Dorey FJ
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 884-892
        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • Gabe R
        • Kaplan R
        • Parmar MK
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • Panebianco V
        • Mynderse LA
        • Vaarala MH
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767-1777
        • Pepe P
        • Pennisi M
        • Fraggetta F
        How many cores should be obtained during saturation biopsy in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance? xperience in 875 patients submitted to repeat prostate biopsy.
        Urology. 2020; 137: 133-137
        • Pepe P
        • Garufi A
        • Priolo G
        • Pennisi M
        Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance?.
        World J Urol. 2016; 34: 1249-1253
        • Roscigno M
        • Stabile A
        • Lughezzani G
        • Pepe P
        • Galosi AB
        • Naselli A
        • et al.
        The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for follow-up of patients included in active surveillance protocol. can PSA density discriminate patients at different risk of reclassification?.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020;
        • Purysko AS
        • Magi-Galluzzi C
        • Mian OY
        • Sittenfeld S
        • Davicioni E
        • du Plessis M
        • et al.
        Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 4861-4870
        • Tan N
        • Margolis DJ
        • Lu DY
        • King KG
        • Huang J
        • Reiter RE
        • et al.
        Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3-T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205: W87-W92
        • Park KJ
        • Kim MH
        • Kim JK
        • Cho KS
        Characterization and PI-RADS version 2 assessment of prostate cancers missed by prebiopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI: Correlation with whole-mount thin-section histopathology.
        Clin Imaging. 2019; 55: 174-180
        • Chung DY
        • Koh DH
        • Goh HJ
        • Kim MS
        • Lee JS
        • Jang WS
        • et al.
        Clinical significance and predictors of oncologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for invisible prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI.
        BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 1057
        • Johnson DC
        • Raman SS
        • Mirak SA
        • Kwan L
        • Bajgiran AM
        • Hsu W
        • et al.
        Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 712-720
        • Sharif-Afshar AR
        • Feng T
        • Koopman S
        • Nguyen C
        • Li Q
        • Shkolyar E
        • et al.
        Impact of post prostate biopsy hemorrhage on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
        Can J Urol. 2015; 22: 7698-7702
        • Ko YH
        • Song PH
        • Moon KH
        • Jung HC
        • Cheon J
        • Sung DJ
        The optimal timing of post-prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging to guide nerve-sparing surgery.
        Asian J Androl. 2014; 16: 280-284
        • Le JD
        • Tan N
        • Shkolyar E
        • Lu DY
        • Kwan L
        • Marks LS
        • et al.
        Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 569-576
        • Quon JS
        • Moosavi B
        • Khanna M
        • Flood TA
        • Lim CS
        • Schieda N
        False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance.
        Insights Imaging. 2015; 6: 449-463
        • Houlahan KE
        • Salmasi A
        • Sadun TY
        • Pooli A
        • Felker ER
        • Livingstone J
        • et al.
        Molecular hallmarks of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging visibility in prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 18-23
        • Salami SS
        • Kaplan JB
        • Nallandhighal S
        • Takhar M
        • Tosoian JJ
        • Lee M
        • et al.
        Biologic significance of magnetic resonance imaging invisibility in localized prostate cancer.
        JCO Precision Oncol. 2019;; : 1-12
        • Sonn GA
        • Fan RE
        • Ghanouni P
        • Wang NN
        • Brooks JD
        • Loening AM
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 5: 592-599
        • Riney JC
        • Sarwani NE
        • Siddique S
        • Raman JD
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging: the truth lies in the eye of the beholder.
        Urol Oncol. 2018; 36: 159.e1-159.e5