Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology 5/2019

20.02.2019 | Pelvis

Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI)

verfasst von: Marco Gatti, Riccardo Faletti, Giorgio Calleris, Jacopo Giglio, Claudio Berzovini, Francesco Gentile, Giancarlo Marra, Francesca Misischi, Luca Molinaro, Laura Bergamasco, Paolo Gontero, Mauro Papotti, Paolo Fonio

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To study the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by readers with different experience, comparing performance with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bmMRI) and with the reference multiparametric (mpMRI).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 68 patients with mpMRI of the prostate at 1.5 Tesla using a 32 phased-array coil. Forty-five patients (cases) underwent radical prostatectomy, whereas 23 (controls) had a negative prostate biopsy and ≥ 2.5 years of negative follow-up. Six observers (two with 1000 cases interpreted, two with 300, two with 100) performed the analysis first with bpMRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in three planes and, after 1 month, with mpMRI, adding dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). The performance was quantified by sensitivity (SNS), specificity (SPC) and area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) procedure.

Results

Concordance within observers of equivalent experience was good (weighted Cohen’s k ≈ 0.7). The two expert readers performed as well in bpMRI as in mpMRI (SNS = 0.91–0.96, AUC = 0.86–0.93; p ≥ 0.10); readers with 300 cases performed well in mpMRI, but significantly worse in bpMR: SNS = 0.58 versus 0.91 (p < 0.0001) and AUC = 0.73 versus 0.86 (p = 0.01); the limited experience of readers with 100 cases showed in mpMRI (SNS = 0.71; AUC = 0.77) and even more in bpMRI (SNS = 0.50; AUC = 0.68).

Conclusion

The study revealed the impact of the readers’ experience when using bpMRI. The bpMRI without contrast media was a valid alternative for expert readers, whereas less experienced ones needed DCE to significantly boost SNS and AUC. Results indicate 700–800 cases as threshold for reliable interpretation with bpMRI.
Literatur
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Marra G, Gontero P, Valerio M (2016) Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why Focal Therapy is a step forward. Arch Esp Urol 69:271–280PubMed Marra G, Gontero P, Valerio M (2016) Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why Focal Therapy is a step forward. Arch Esp Urol 69:271–280PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, et al (2011) Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:664–670. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5923 CrossRefPubMed Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, et al (2011) Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:664–670. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2214/​AJR.​10.​5923 CrossRefPubMed
8.
10.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12892 CrossRefPubMed Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117:80–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​bju.​12892 CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al (2016) 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 26:1606–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6 CrossRefPubMed Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al (2016) 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 26:1606–1612. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00330-015-4015-6 CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) 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 41:e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000820 Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) 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 41:e1–e7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​PAS.​0000000000000820​
Metadaten
Titel
Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI)
verfasst von
Marco Gatti
Riccardo Faletti
Giorgio Calleris
Jacopo Giglio
Claudio Berzovini
Francesco Gentile
Giancarlo Marra
Francesca Misischi
Luca Molinaro
Laura Bergamasco
Paolo Gontero
Mauro Papotti
Paolo Fonio
Publikationsdatum
20.02.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2019
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2019

Abdominal Radiology 5/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The “phantom” calyx

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

Sentinel clot sign in hemoperitoneum

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.