Display options
Cite
Pockros B, Stensland KD, Parries M, et al. Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology. Prostate. 2021;82(3):352-358doi: 10.1002/pros.24280.
Pockros, B., Stensland, K. D., Parries, M., Frankenberger, E., Canes, D., & Moinzadeh, A. (2022). Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology. The Prostate, 82(3), 352-358. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24280
Pockros, Benjamin, et al. "Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology." The Prostate vol. 82,3 (2022): 352-358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24280
Pockros B, Stensland KD, Parries M, Frankenberger E, Canes D, Moinzadeh A. Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology. Prostate. 2022 Feb;82(3):352-358. doi: 10.1002/pros.24280. Epub 2021 Dec 08. PMID: 34878175.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Prostate. 2022 Feb;82(3):352-358. doi: 10.1002/pros.24280. Epub 2021 Dec 08.

Preoperative MRI PI-RADS scores are associated with prostate cancer upstaging on surgical pathology.

The Prostate

Benjamin Pockros, Kristian D Stensland, Molly Parries, Edward Frankenberger, David Canes, Alireza Moinzadeh

Affiliations

  1. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  3. Division of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.

PMID: 34878175 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24280

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores can help identify clinically significant prostate cancer and improve patient selection for prostate biopsies. However, the role of PI-RADS scores in patients already diagnosed with prostate cancer remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of PI-RADS scores with prostate cancer upstaging. Upstaging on final pathology harbors a higher risk for biochemical recurrence with important implications for additional treatments, morbidity, and mortality.

METHODS: All patients from a single high-volume institution who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to investigate potential associations with upstaging events, defined by pT3, pT4, or N1 on final pathology. A logistic regression model was constructed for the prediction of upstaging events based on PI-RADS score, prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D), and biopsy Gleason grade groups. We built receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curves to measure the area under the curve of different predictive models.

RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-four patients were included in the final analysis. Upstaging events occurred in 137 (46.5%) of patients. On univariable analysis, patients who were upstaged on final pathology had significantly higher PI-RADS scores (odds ratio [OR] 2.34 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64-3.40, p < 0.001) but similar PSA-D (OR 2.70 95% 0.94-8.43, p = 0.188) compared with patients who remained pT1 or pT2 on final pathology. On multivariable analysis, PI-RADS remained independently significantly associated with upstaging, suggesting it is an independent risk predictor for upstaging. Lymph node metastasis only occurred in patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions (n = 15). Our model using PSA-D, biopsy Gleason grade, and PI-RADS had a predictive AUC of 0.69 for upstaging events, an improvement from 0.59 using biopsy Gleason grade alone.

CONCLUSION: PI-RADS scores are independent predictors for upstaging events and may play an important role in forecasting biochemical recurrence and lymph node metastasis. Modern nomograms should be updated to include PI-RADS to predict lymph node metastases and the likelihood of biochemical recurrence more accurately.

© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Keywords: MRI; PI-RADS; prostate cancer; upstage

References

  1. Aminsharifi A, Howard L, Wu Y, et al. Prostate specific antigen density as a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer when the prostate specific antigen is in the diagnostic gray zone: defining the optimum cutoff point stratified by race and body mass index. J Urol. 2018;200:758-766. - PubMed
  2. Pagniez MA, Kasivisvanathan V, Puech P, Drumez E, Villers A, Olivier J. Predictive factors of missed clinically significant prostate cancers in men with negative magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204:24-32. - PubMed
  3. Stevens E, Truong M, Bullen JA, Ward RD, Purysko AS, Klein EA. Clinical utility of PSAD combined with PI-RADS category for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(846):e9-846.e16. - PubMed
  4. Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol. 2017;198:575-582. - PubMed
  5. Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int. 2021;127:175-178. - PubMed
  6. Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A, et al Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;21 S2588-9311(20):30142-30145. - PubMed
  7. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Prostate Cancer, Version 4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www2.trikobe.org/nccn/guideline/urological/english/prostate.pdf - PubMed
  8. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480-487. - PubMed
  9. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dynamic Prostate Cancer Nomogram: Coefficients. @sloan_kettering. https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op/coefficients - PubMed
  10. Huelster HL, Laviana AA, Joyce DD, et al. Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: effect of timing of postprostatectomy radiation on functional outcomes. Uro Oncol. 2020;38(12):930.e23-930.e32. - PubMed
  11. Balakrishnan AS, Zhao S, Cowan JE, Broering JM, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends and predictors of adjuvant therapy for adverse features following radical prostatectomy: an analysis from cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. Urology. 2019;131:157-165. - PubMed
  12. Jin CJ, Hanna TP, Cook EF, Miao Q, Brundage MD. Variation in radiotherapy referral and treatment for high-risk pathological features after radical prostatectomy: results from a population-based Study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30(1):47-56. - PubMed
  13. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2019;75:967-987. - PubMed
  14. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1428-1435. - PubMed
  15. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242. - PubMed
  16. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Weinreb J, Schoots I, Tempany C. Re: variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Eur Urol. 2020;78:633-636. - PubMed
  17. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:225-233. - PubMed
  18. Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Mwangi R, et al. Contemporary trends in magnetic resonance imaging at the time of prostate biopsy: results from a large private insurance database. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:86-94. - PubMed
  19. Song G, Ruan M, Wang H, et al. Predictive model using prostate MRI findings can predict candidates for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy among low-intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:437-444. - PubMed
  20. Huang C, Song G, Wang H, et al. Preoperative PI-RADS Version 2 scores helps improve accuracy of clinical nomograms for predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:116-126. - PubMed
  21. Rajwa P, Mori K, Huebner NA, et al. The prognostic association of prostate MRI PI-RADS™ v2 assessment category and risk of biochemical recurrence after definitive local therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;206(3):507-516. - PubMed
  22. 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. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-629. - PubMed
  23. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Biesma DH, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging should be preferred over digital rectal examination for prostate cancer local staging and disease risk classification. Urology. 2021;147:205-212. - PubMed
  24. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1604-1608. - PubMed
  25. Schoots IG, Ahmed HU, Padhani AR. Can diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging for suspected clinically significant prostate cancer predict unfavorable long-term outcome for diagnosed men for pretreatment counseling? Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(4):529-531. - PubMed
  26. Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, et al. Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):549-563. - PubMed
  27. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol. 2019;75:385-396. - PubMed
  28. Parry MA, Srivastava S, Ali A, et al. Genomic evaluation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-visible and -nonvisible lesions in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:1-11. - PubMed
  29. Bakavičius A, Drevinskaitė M, Daniūnaitė K, Barisiené M, Jarmalaité S, Jankevičius F. The impact of prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging on biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific survival. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56:61. - PubMed
  30. Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Stephenson AJ. Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:1003-1009. - PubMed
  31. Vickers AJ, Fine SW. Three things about Gleason grading that just about everyone believes but that are almost certainly wrong. Urology. 2020;143:16-19. - PubMed
  32. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multi-center study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 2016;280:793-804. - PubMed

Publication Types