The role of MRI in the detection of local recurrence: Added value of multiparametric approach and Signal Intensity/Time Curve analysis
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.1.25
Accepted: August 25, 2021
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) with the evaluation of the added value of signal Intensity/Time (I/T) curves.
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 22 patients undergoing mpMRI from 2015 to 2020 was carried out, with the following inclusion criteria: performing transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy within 3 months in the case of positive or doubtful findings and undergoing biopsy and/or clinical follow-up for 24 months in the case of negative results. The images were reviewed, and the lesions were catalogued according to morphological, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast- enhanced (DCE) features.
Results: The presence of local recurrence was detected in 11/22 patients (50%). Greater diameter, hyperintensity on DWI, positive contrast enhancement and type 2/3 signal I/T curves were more frequently observed in patients with local recurrence (all p < 0.05). Of all the sequences, DCE was the most accurate; however, the combination of DCE and DWI showed the best results, with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 82%, a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 85%.
Conclusions: The utility of MRI in the detection of local recurrence is tied to the multiparametric approach, with all sequences providing useful information. A combination of DCE and DWI is particularly effective. Moreover, specificity could be additionally improved using analysis of the signal I/T curves.
Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging: Froemming AT, Verma S, Eberhardt SC et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® post-treatment follow-up prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15(5S):S132-S149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.03.019
Potretzke TA, Froemming AT, Gupta RT. Post-treatment prostate MRI. Abdom Radiol. 2020; 45:2184-2197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02348-x
Gaur S, Turkbey B. Prostate MR Imaging for posttreatment evaluation and recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018; 56:263-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.008
Patel P, Mathew MS, Trilisky I, Oto A. Multiparametric MR Imaging of the prostate after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2018;38:437-449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170147
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:1745-1752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2768-3
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al; Grading Committee. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40:244-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Bianchi L, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: indications, extent and tailored approaches. Urologia. 2017; 84:9-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/uro.5000139
Bianchi L, Schiavina R, Borghesi M, et al. Patterns of positive surgical margins after open radical prostatectomy and their association with clinical recurrence. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020; 72:464-473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03269-7
Drudi FM, Giovagnorio F, Carbone A, et al. Transrectal colour Doppler contrast sonography in the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy--comparison with MRI. Ultraschall Med. 2006; 27:146-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-926583
De Visschere PJL, Standaert C, Fütterer JJ, et al. A systematic review on the role of imaging in early recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2:47-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.010
Ceci F, Bianchi L, Borghesi M, et al. Prediction nomogram for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in different clinical settings of PSA failure after radical treatment for prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 47:136-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04505-2
Allen SD, Thompson A, Sohaib SA. The normal post-surgical anatomy of the male pelvis following radical prostatectomy as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18:1281-1291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0867-3
Casciani E, Polettini E, Carmenini E, et al. Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190:1187-1192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3032
Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19:761-769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8
Kitajima K, Hartman RP, Froemming AT, et al. Detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy using endorectal coil MRI at 3 T: addition of DWI and dynamic contrast enhancement to T2-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205:807-816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14275
Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciccia S, et al. Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:589-600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.034
Girometti R, Cereser L, Bonato F, Zuiani C. Evolution of prostate MRI: from multiparametric standard to less-is-better and different-is better strategies. Eur Radiol Exp. 2019; 3:5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-019-0088-3
Robertson NL, Sala E, Benz M, et al. Combined whole body and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging as a 1-step approach to the simultaneous assessment of local recurrence and metastatic disease after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017;198:65-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.071
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76:340-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004; 231:379-385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312030011
Rouvière O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D. Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol. 2010; 20:1254-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1647-4
Stanzione A, Creta M, Imbriaco M, et al. Attitudes and perceptions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: A national survey among Italian urologists. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:291-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
