Skip to main content
Log in

Investigating the equivalent performance of biparametric compared to multiparametric MRI in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

PIRADS v2 stipulates that dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging be used to categorize diffusion-weighted-imaging (DWI) score 3 (DWI 3) peripheral zone (PZ) lesions as PIRADS score 3 (PIRADS 3; DCE −) or PIRADS 4 (DCE +). It’s controversial for the value of DCE in improving clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection. We aimed to figure out whether DCE improves csPCa detection and explore new available measures to improve csPCa detection.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively enrolled 375 patients who underwent mp MRI before MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-targeted biopsy (TB) with transperineal systematic biopsy (SB). All lesions were classified as DWI 3/DCE −, DWI 3/DCE +, DWI 4/PIRADS 4 lesions. Detection rates of csPCa for each lesion group were analyzed. The diagnostic performance of each approach was analyzed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and decision curve analysis.

Results

Totally, 109 DWI 3 or DWI 4 single lesions in PZ were analyzed (n = 109). The rates of csPCa detection for Group A, Group B, Group C is 10.3%, 13.9%, 55.9%, respectively (A vs. B, p = 0.625; B vs. C, p < 0.001). ROC analysis and decision curve analysis showed the method of combining Age, PSA Density (PSAD) and the mean apparent diffusion coefficient value (ADCmean) outperforms individual approaches for csPCa detection.

Conclusion

For DWI 3 lesions in PZ, DCE sequence has not additional value for improving detection of csPCa. The integration of clinical characteristics and bpMRI parameter improves the detection of csPCa.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. European urology 2012; 61:1079-1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. European urology 2014; 65:1046-1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama 2018; 319:1914-1931

  4. Carroll PH, Mohler JL. NCCN Guidelines Updates: Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Early Detection. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN 2018; 16:620-623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. European urology 2017; 71:618-629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, et al. Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naive Men? European urology 2017; 71:896-903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. European urology 2013; 63:214-230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European urology 2015; 68:438-450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Siddiqui MM, 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. European urology 2016; 69:16-40

  11. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Ramalho M, Nunes RH, AlObaidy M, Castillo M. Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent Accumulation and Toxicity: An Update. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 2016; 37:1192-1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Idee JM, Fretellier N, Robic C, Corot C. The role of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: A critical update. Critical reviews in toxicology 2014; 44:895-913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Darrah TH, Prutsman-Pfeiffer JJ, Poreda RJ, Ellen Campbell M, Hauschka PV, Hannigan RE. Incorporation of excess gadolinium into human bone from medical contrast agents. Metallomics : integrated biometal science 2009; 1:479-488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial Gadolinium Deposition after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology 2015; 275:772-782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mussi TC, Martins T, Garcia RG, Filippi RZ, Lemos GC, Baroni RH. Are Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Images Necessary for Prostate Cancer Detection on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? Clinical genitourinary cancer 2017; 15:e447-e454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Druskin SC, Ward R, Purysko AS, et al. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improves Classification of Prostate Lesions: A Study of Pathological Outcomes on Targeted Prostate Biopsy. The Journal of urology 2017; 198:1301-1308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. The Journal of urology 2016; 196:1613-1618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN 2016; 14:509-519

  19. Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. The Journal of urology 2017; 198:583-590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer 2017; 123:1941-1948

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259:453-461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI 2011; 33:167-172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. International urology and nephrology 2017; 49:439-448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Taghipour M, Ziaei A, Alessandrino F, et al. Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy. Abdominal radiology 2019; 44:1520-1527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang Q, Wang W, Yang R, et al. Free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: single-center experience in China. International urology and nephrology 2015; 47:727-733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. The American journal of surgical pathology 2016; 40:244-252

  27. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. The New England journal of medicine 2018; 378:1767-1777

  28. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 2006; 26:565-574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated Biparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Radiology 2017; 285:493-505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sherrer RL, Glaser ZA, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Porter KK, Rais-Bahrami S. Comparison of biparametric MRI to full multiparametric MRI for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 2018;

  31. Taghipour M, Ziaei A, Alessandrino F, et al. Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy. Abdominal radiology 2018

  32. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology 2017; 285:859-869

  33. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU international 2017; 120:631-638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maxeiner A, Kittner B, Blobel C, et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU international 2018; 122:211-218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU international 2015; 115:381-388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Westphalen AC, Fazel F, Nguyen H, et al. Detection of clinically signifi cant prostate cancer with PIRADS v2 scores, PSA density, and ADC values in regions with and without mpMRI visible lesions. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology 2019; 45:713-723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Sarkar S, et al. Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk Among Men Undergoing Combined MRI-targeted and Systematic Biopsy Using Novel Pre-biopsy Nomograms That Incorporate MRI Findings. Urology 2018; 112:112-120

  38. Lee SJ, Oh YT, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, Park SY. Combined Analysis of Biparametric MRI and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density: Role in the Prebiopsy Diagnosis of Gleason Score 7 or Greater Prostate Cancer. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2018; 211:W166-W172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin PR, Cool DW, Romagnoli C, Fenster A, Ward AD. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis. Medical physics 2014; 41:073504

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (ID: 81772710 and 81572519) and the Project of Invigorating Health Care through Science, Technology and Education, Jiangsu Provincial Key Medical Discipline (Laboratory) (ZDXKB2016014)and National Natural Science Foundation of China (81802535), China postdoctoral fund(223427), Nanjing Medical Science and technique Development Foundation (YKK 18064).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bing Zhang or Hongqian Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

The institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained and all patients were informed and signed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Drum Tower Hospital (2017-147-01).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 2603 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, B., Gao, J., Zhang, Q. et al. Investigating the equivalent performance of biparametric compared to multiparametric MRI in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 45, 547–555 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02281-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02281-z

Keywords

Navigation