Introduction: There is a broad variability in the accuracy levels of MRI with regard to the local staging of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: A prospective analysis was conducted in patients with localized PCa with MRI of the prostate before radical prostatectomy. MRI and pathology findings were independently reviewed and reported based on a standardized map of the prostate with 16 regions of interest (ROIs). Diagnostic accuracy analysis of the MRI was performed using varying prostate-subpart sizes and varying cutoffs for the radiological probability for PCa presence. Results: Seventy four patients were included. Using varying cutoff probabilities and varying sizes of prostate-subparts resulted in a broad range of sensitivity (6-88%) and specificity (38-100%). Lower probabilities of PCa presence and larger prostate-subparts resulted in higher sensitivity but lower specificity and vice versa. Best diagnostic performance was achieved by using prostate sextants and at least moderate probabilities for PCa presence; mean sensitivity and specificity were 38% (95% CI 13-75) and 95% (95% CI 88-98). Conclusion: The use of varying assessment parameters strongly affects the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in the local staging of PCa. Hence, precise and standardized reporting regarding these parameters is important. In our study, using at least moderate probabilities for PCa presence on MRI and prostatic sextants as ROI size was associated with best diagnostic performance.

Keywords:
Local staging, MRI, Assessment, Parameters, Prostate cancer
1.
Pinto F, et al: Imaging in prostate cancer staging: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 2012;88:125-136.
2.
Gupta RT, et al: The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park) 2013;27:262-270.
3.
Sciarra A, et al: Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1875-1883.
4.
Hambrock T, et al: Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012;61:177-184.
5.
Rastinehad AR, et al: D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;185:815-820.
6.
Vargas HA, et al: Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011;259:775-784.
7.
Yerram NK, et al: Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;110(11 pt B):E783-E788.
8.
Jung SI, et al: Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2013;269:493-503.
9.
Scheidler J, et al: Diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with persistently elevated PSA and tumor-negative biopsy in ambulatory care: performance of MR imaging in a multi-reader environment. Rofo 2012;184:130-135.
10.
Umbehr MH, Poyet C, Donati OF, Müntener M: Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic work up of clinical localized prostate cancer: a review. World J Clin Urol 2014;3:44-46.
11.
Dickinson L, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-494.
12.
Jie C, Rongbo L, Ping T: The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014;24:1929-1941.
13.
Choyke PL, Turkbey B: The state of prostate MRI in 2013: into the breach. Oncology (Williston Park) 2013;27:274-276.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.