Download PDF
Rofo 2020; 192(05): 441-447
DOI: 10.1055/a-1020-4026
Urogenital Tract
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging in Peripheral Lesions in PI-RADS-4 Patients

Stellenwert der dynamischen kontrastmittelgestützten MR-Bildgebung in peripheren Läsionen bei PI-RADS-4-Patienten
Tim Ullrich
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Michael Quentin
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Christian Arsov
2   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Nina Laqua
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Daniel Abrar
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Andreas Hiester
2   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Peter Albers
2   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Gerald Antoch
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
,
Lars Schimmöller
1   University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Dusseldorf, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

12 April 2019

23 September 2019

Publication Date:
17 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess the impact of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) in mp-MRI on prostate cancer (PCa) detection in a large patient cohort assigned to PI-RADS category 4.

Method This retrospective, single center cohort study includes 193 consecutive patients with PI-RADS assessment category 4 in mp-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE) at 3 T with targeted plus systematic biopsy combined as the reference standard. The detection of prostate cancer with and without the use of DCE was compared.

Results Overall, the PCa detection rate in PI-RADS-4 patients was 62 % (119/193) with DCE and 52 % (101/193) without the inclusion of lesions upgraded on the basis of DCE. 48 % (92/193) had clinically significant PCa (csPCa; Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 = 7) and 40 % (78/193) without use of DCE. 38 of the 193 patients (20 %) had peripheral lesions upgraded from PI-RADS category 3 to an overall PI-RADS category 4 due to focal positive DCE findings. Of these 38 patients, 18 had PCa including 14 with csPCa. Thus, 15 % (18/119) of the patients with PCa and 15 % (14/92) of the patients with csPCa were detected only based on additional DCE information.

Conclusion DCE prevents underestimation and misclassification of a significant number of cases of peripheral csPCa and might improve detection rates in PI-RADS-4 patients. The current PI-RADS decision rules regarding upgrading PI-RADS-3 lesions to category 4 due to positive DCE imaging are useful for PCa detection.

Key points: 

  • Positive peripheral DCE upgraded 20 % of patients in PI-RADS category 4 from category 3.

  • Clinically significant PCa was found in almost 40 % of upgraded, peripheral PIRADS-3-lesions.

  • 15 % of all csPCa in PI-RADS-4-patients was detected in DCE-upgraded lesions.

  • In 7 % of all PI-RADS-4-cases csPCa would had been underestimated without DCE upgrade.

Citation Format

  • Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C et al. Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MR Imaging in Peripheral Lesions in PI-RADS-4 Patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 441 – 447

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Ziel der Studie war die Evaluation des Mehrwerts der dynamischen kontrastmittelgestützten Sequenzen (DCE) in der multiparametrischen MRT (mp-MRT) bezüglich der Prostatakarzinomdetektion in einer großen Kohorte von Patienten mit PI-RADS-4-Befund.

Material und Methoden 193 Patienten mit einer MR-Gesamtklassifikation von PI-RADS 4 nach mp-MRT der Prostata bei 3 T (T2WI, DWI, DCE) und anschließend kombiniert gezielter plus systematischer Biopsie als Referenzstandard wurden retrospektiv in diese unizentrische Kohortenstudie eingeschlossen. Es wurde die Prostatakarzinomdetektion mit und ohne die Hilfe kontrastmittelgestützter Sequenzen verglichen.

Ergebnisse Die Gesamtkarzinomdetektionsrate in den PI-RADS-4-Patienten war 62 % (119/193). Ohne Einschluss von Läsionen, die mithilfe der DCE von Kategorie PI-RADS 3 auf PI-RADS 4 aufgewertet wurden, lag die Detektionsrate bei 52 % (101/193). Mit DCE wurden 48 % (92/193) klinisch signifikante Prostatakarzinome (Gleason-Score ≥ 3 + 4 = 7) detektiert und 40 % (78/193) ohne DCE-Verwendung. 38 der 193 Patienten (20 %) hatten periphere Läsionen, die durch auffällige Kontrastmittelanreicherung von PI-RADS Kategorie 3 auf 4 aufgewertet wurden. Von diesen 38 Patienten hatten 18 ein Prostatakarzinom, einschließlich 14 mit einem klinisch signifikanten Karzinom. Somit wurden 15 % (18/119) mit jeglichem Prostatakarzinom und 15 % (14/92) mit einem klinisch relevanten Karzinom nur durch zusätzliche Informationen aus kontrastmittelgestützten Sequenzen detektiert.

Schlussfolgerung Kontrastmittelgestützte, dynamische Sequenzen können eine zu niedrige PI-RADS-Fehlklassifizierung einer relevanten Anzahl von Prostatakarzinomen verhindern und die Detektionsraten bei PI-RADS-4-Patienten verbessern. Die aktuellen PI-RADS-Kriterien zur Aufwertung von PI-RADS-3-Läsionen in die Gesamtkategorie 4 durch auffällige Kontrastmittelanreicherung scheinen sinnvoll.

Kernaussagen: 

  • 20 % der PI-RADS-4-Patienten wurden durch auffällige, periphere Kontrastmittelanreicherung aus Kategorie 3 aufgewertet.

  • Klinisch signifikante Prostatakarzinome wurden in fast 40 % der aufgewerteten, peripheren PI-RADS-3-Läsionen gefunden.

  • 15 % aller signifikanten Karzinome bei PI-RADS-4-Patienten wurden in durch DCE aufgewerteten Läsionen detektiert.

  • In 7 % aller PI-RADS-4-Befunde wären klinisch signifikante Prostatakarzinome ohne DCE unterschätzt worden.

Key words

prostate cancer - magnetic resonance imaging - contrast media - image-guided biopsy
 

  • References

  • 1 Barentsz J, de Rooij M, Villeirs G. et al. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 and the Implementation of High-quality Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 189-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY. et al. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA. Clin Radiol 2017; 72: 23-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S. et al. Combined Biparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study in a Biopsy-naive Patient Population. Urology 2016; 88: 125-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF. et al. Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211: 369-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D. et al. Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2011; 14: 232-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H. et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–20ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 664-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ullrich T, Arsov C, Quentin M. et al. Analysis of PI-RADS 4 cases: Management recommendations for negatively biopsied patients. Eur J Radiol 2019; 113: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse UG. et al. MRI of the Prostate: Recommendations on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol. RöFo 2017; 189: 21-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C. et al. MRI-Guided In-Bore Biopsy: Differences Between Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization in Primary and Secondary Biopsy Settings. AJR 2016; 206: 92-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing MR-guided in-bore versus MRI/ultrasound fusion and TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 713-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ullrich T, Quentin M, Schmaltz AK. et al. Hyoscine butylbromide significantly decreases motion artefacts and allows better delineation of anatomic structures in mp-MRT of the prostate. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S. et al. START Consortium Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 544-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG. et al. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021 [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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. J Urol 2017; 198: 583-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. et al. Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. Radiology 2017; 283: 119-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Chen Z, Zheng Y, Ji G. et al. Accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017; 17: 77975-77989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA. et al. 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 2016; 26: 1606-1612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Scialpi M, Falcone G, Scialpi P. et al. Biparametric MRI: a further improvement to PIRADS 2.0?. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016; 22: 297-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C. et al. Risk stratification of Equivocal PI-RADS lesions in mp-MRI of the prostate. J Urol 2018; 199: 691-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Walker JT, Singla N, Roehrborn CG. Reducing Infectious Complications Following Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Rev Urol 2016; 18: 73-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mazaheri Y, Vargas A, Nyman G. et al. Image Artifacts on Prostate Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: 1041-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Puech P, Sufana-Iancu A, Renard B. et al. Prostate MRI: can we do without DCE sequences in 2013?. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 12: 1299-1311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Benndorf M, Waibel L, Krönig M. et al. Peripheral zone lesions of intermediary risk in multiparametric prostate MRI: Frequency and validation of the PI-RADSv2 risk stratification algorithm based on focal contrast enhancement. Eur J Radiol 2018; 99: 62-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar