Magnetic Resonance Image in the diagnosis and evaluation of extra-prostatic extension and involvement of seminal vesicles of prostate cancer: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

The Sensitivity and Specificity of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Predicting Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background/Objectives: The presence of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) in prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes. This study evaluates the predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) for SVI in PCa. Methods: This cohort study included consecutive robotic prostatectomy patients for PCa at three Australian tertiary referral centres between April 2016 and September 2022. MRI and PSMA PET/CT results, clinicopathological variables, including age, BMI, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, DRE, Biopsy Gleason score, Positive biopsy cores, PIRADS v2.1 score, MRI volume and MRI lesion size were extracted. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI and PSMA PET/CT for predicting SVI were compared with the histopathological results by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Subgroup univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. Results: Of the 528 patients identified, 86 had SVI on final pathology. MRI had a low sensitivity of 0.162 (95% CI: 0.088-0.261) and a high specificity of 0.963 (95% CI: 0.940-0.979). The PSMA PET/CT had a low sensitivity of 0.439 (95% CI: 0.294-0591) and a high specificity of 0.933 (95% CI: 0.849-0.969). When MRI and PSMA PET/CT were used in combination, the sensitivity and specificity improved to 0.514 (95%CI: 0.356-0.670) and 0.880 (95% CI: 0.813-0.931). The multivariate regression showed a higher biopsy Gleason score (p = 0.033), higher PSA (p < 0.001), older age (p = 0.001), and right base lesions (p = 0.003) to be predictors of SVI. Conclusions: MRI and PSMA PET/CT independently underpredicted SVI. The sensitivity and AUC improved when they were used in combination. Multiple clinicopathological factors were associated with SVI on multivariate regression and predictive models incorporating this information may improve oncological outcomes.

Early biomarkers of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer using MRI-derived semantic features

BACKGROUND

To construct a model based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features and histological and clinical variables for the prediction of pathology-detected extracapsular extension (pECE) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We performed a prospective 3 T MRI study comparing the clinical and MRI data on pECE obtained from patients treated using robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our institution. The covariates under consideration were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, the patient's age, prostate volume, and MRI interpretative features for predicting pECE based on the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 (v2), as well as tumor capsular contact length (TCCL), length of the index lesion, and prostate biopsy Gleason score (GS). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to explore the statistical associations and construct the model. We also recruited an additional set of participants-which included 59 patients from external institutions-to validate the model.

RESULTS

The study participants included 184 patients who had undergone RARP at our institution, 26% of whom were pECE+ (i.e., pECE positive). Significant predictors of pECE+ were TCCL, capsular disruption, measurable ECE on MRI, and a GS of ≥7(4 + 3) on a prostate biopsy. The strongest predictor of pECE+ is measurable ECE on MRI, and in its absence, a combination of TCCL and prostate biopsy GS was significantly effective for detecting the patient's risk of being pECE+. Our predictive model showed a satisfactory performance at distinguishing between patients with pECE+ and patients with pECE-, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.90 (86.0-95.8%), high sensitivity (86%), and moderate specificity (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our predictive model, based on consistent MRI features (i.e., measurable ECE and TCCL) and a prostate biopsy GS, has satisfactory performance and sufficiently high sensitivity for predicting pECE+. Hence, the model could be a valuable tool for surgeons planning preoperative nerve sparing, as it would reduce positive surgical margins.

Imaging and Management of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in men and the second leading cause of cancer related death in the United States. Men with clinical suspicion of PCa undergo tissue sampling and based on features including the Gleason score, Prostate Specific antigen (PSA) levels and clinical tumor (T) stage, patients are risk stratified into 6 major groups based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. This forms the basis for deciding imaging and management. Active surveillance is the preferred approach for less aggressive tumors. Surgery or radiation +/- androgen deprivation therapy continue to be the primary treatment options for localized disease. Imaging plays a critical role in the diagnosis, staging and management of PCa. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is currently the imaging modality of choice for locoregional staging. MRI, computed tomography and bone scan remain the preferred modalities for evaluation of nodal, soft tissue, and bone metastases, respectively. Advanced positron emission tomography imaging using novel radiotracers are being developed but are not yet integrated in the diagnostic guidelines for initial staging. In this review, we will discuss the imaging and treatment algorithms based on the NCCN risk groups, describe the utility of individual modalities, review Prosate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2.1 for the reporting of mpMRI of the prostate.

Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles.

RECOMMENDATIONS

One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.

Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel. Results: A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5-83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3-75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77-90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0-85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3-82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6-74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient). Conclusion: By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity.

Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Extracapsular Extension of Prostate Cancer in Community Practice

INTRODUCTION

The presence of extracapsular extension (ECE) in prostate cancer (PCa) can influence a surgeon's decision to perform a nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy (RP). Preoperatively, multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) is often used to stage PCa. More recently, the use of mp-MRI has gained wide acceptance in fusion biopsy of the prostate. In this framework, the reported accuracy of mp-MRI has been highly variable, with data often originating from large referral centers with experienced radiologists. We sought to determine the sensitivity and specificity of mp-MRI for detecting ECE in the community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of men with PCa who had undergone RP. We recorded the prevalence of ECE at RP and determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRI for detecting ECE. We assessed these values according to the D'Amico risk groups and compared the predictive value of MRI to that of the Partin tables.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ECE was 11.5%, 28.1%, and 47.1% in the low-, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively, with an overall prevalence of 24.1%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRI was 12.5%, 93.1%, 36.4%, and 77.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reduction in the sensitivity of preoperative mp-MRI to determine ECE in the community setting is significant. Even with stratification using the D'Amico criteria and Partin tables, the performance of mp-MRI was not significantly improved. Because most cases of PCa are diagnosed and treated in the community, it is questionable whether mp-MRI is a suitable staging modality in the community.

Role of MRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate consists of T1- and T2-weighted sequences, which provide anatomical information, and one or more 'functional' sequences, that is, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Prostate MRI is the most accurate imaging method for local staging of prostate cancer and can also be used for the noninvasive evaluation of tumor aggressiveness. By magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy it is possible to target the most cancer-suspicious areas of the gland, especially in patients with a negative transrectal biopsy. In patients with biochemical recurrence after radical treatment, MRI is a valuable tool for the detection of local tumor recurrence and whole-body MRI can be used for the diagnosis of distant metastases.

Multiparametric MRI for localized prostate cancer: lesion detection and staging

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate combines high-resolution anatomic imaging with functional imaging of alterations in normal tissue caused by neoplastic transformation for the identification and characterization of in situ prostate cancer. Lesion detection relies on a systematic approach to the analysis of both anatomic and functional imaging using established criteria for the delineation of suspicious areas. Staging includes visual and functional analysis of the prostate "capsule" to determine if in situ disease is, in fact, organ-confined, as well as the evaluation of pelvic structures including lymph nodes and bones for the detection of metastasis. Although intertwined, the protocol can be optimized depending on whether lesion detection or staging is of the highest priority.