Differences in negative predictive value of prostate MRI based in men with suspected or known cancer / Diferenças no valor preditivo negativo da ressonância magnética da próstata baseada em homens com câncer suspeito ou conhecido

Abstract Objective: To compare the negative predictive value (NPV) of multiparametric MRI for Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3+4 cancer and evaluate predictors of these tumors in men with suspected disease and under active surveillance (AS). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 38 men with suspected prostate cancer and 38 under AS with scans assigned PI-RADS v2 scores 1 or 2 between May 2016 and September 2017. Biopsy results were no cancer, GS = 3+3, or GS ≥ 3+4. Pre-MRI PSA, gland volume, and PSA density were recorded. Chi-square, equality of proportions, and logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. Results: Intermediate to high-grade cancer was found in 12.8% (95% CI = 2.3-23.3) and 35.9% (95% CI = 20.8-50.9) of men with suspected cancer, and under AS (p = 0.02), respectively. The NPV for GS ≥ 3+4 were 87.2% (suspected cancer; 76.7-97.7) and 64.1% (AS; 49.0-79.2). In neither group PSA significantly predicted cancer grade (p = 0.75 and 0.63). Although it did not reach conventional statistical significance, PSA density was a good predictor of cancer grade in men with suspected disease (p = 0.06), but not under AS (p = 0.62). Conclusion: The NPV of multiparametric MRI for GS ≥ 3+4 is higher in men with suspected prostate cancer than in men under AS. PSA density ≤ 0.15 improved the prediction of intermediate to high-grade disease in patients without known cancer.

Resumo Objetivo: Comparar o valor preditivo negativo (VPN) da RM multiparamétrica da próstata para o diagnóstico de tumores escore de Gleason (EG) ≥ 3+4 e avaliar os preditores desses tumores em homens com suspeita de doença e nos sob vigilância ativa (VA). Materiais e Métodos: Este estudo retrospectivo incluiu 38 homens com suspeita de câncer de próstata e 38 em VA com RM, aos quais foram atribuídos escores PI-RADS v2 1 ou 2 entre maio de 2016 e setembro de 2017. Os resultados da biópsia foram ausência de câncer, câncer EG = 3+3 ou câncer EG ≥ 3+4. PSA pré-RM, volume da glândula e densidade de PSA foram anotados. Qui-quadrado, igualdade de proporções e regressões logísticas foram utilizados para analisar os dados. Resultados: Câncer de grau intermediário a alto grau foi encontrado em 12,8% (IC 95% = 2,3-23,3) e 35,9% (IC 95% = 20,8-50,9) dos homens com suspeita de câncer e nos sob VA (p = 0,02), respectivamente. O VPN para GS ≥ 3+4 foi 87,2% (suspeita de câncer; IC 95% = 76,7-97,7) e 64,1% (VA; IC 95% = 49,0-79,2). Em nenhum dos grupos o PSA previu significativamente o grau de câncer (p = 0,75 e 0,63. Embora não tenha alcançado o limiar de significância estatística usual, a densidade de PSA foi um bom preditor de grau de câncer em homens com suspeita de doença (p = 0,06), mas não sob VA (p = 0,62). Conclusão: O VPN da RM multiparamétrica para GS ≥ 3+4 é maior em homens com suspeita de câncer de próstata do que em homens sob VA. Uma densidade de PSA ≤ 0,15 melhorou a previsão de doença de grau intermediário a alto grau em pacientes sem diagnóstico prévio de câncer.

Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS v2 scores, PSA density, and ADC values in regions with and without mpMRI visible lesions

ABSTRACT Purpose To determine if PSAD, PSADtz, and ADC values improve the accuracy of PI-RADS v2 and identify men whose concurrent systematic biopsy detects clinically significant cancer on areas without mpMRI visible lesions. Materials and methods Single reference-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study of consecutive men with suspected or known low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent 3T mpMRI and TRUS-MRI fusion biopsy from 07/15/2014 to 02/17/2018. Cluster-corrected logistic regression analyses were utilized to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3+4) at targeted mpMRI lesions and on systematic biopsy. Results 538 men (median age=66 years, median PSA=7.0ng/mL) with 780mpMRI lesions were included. Clinically significant disease was diagnosed in 371 men. PI-RADS v2 scores of 3, 4, and 5 were clinically significant cancer in 8.0% (16/201), 22.8% (90/395), and 59.2% (109/184). ADC values, PSAD, and PI-RADS v2 scores were independent predictors of clinically significant cancer in targeted lesions (OR 2.25-8.78; P values <0.05; AUROC 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). Increases in PSAD were also associated with upgrade on systematic biopsy (OR 2.39-2.48; P values <0.05; AUROC 0.69, 95% CI 0.64-0.73). Conclusions ADC values and PSAD improve characterization of PI-RADS v2 score 4 or 5 lesions. Upgraded on systematic biopsy is slightly more likely with PSAD ≥0.15 and multiple small PI-RADS v2 score 3 or 4 lesions.

Impact of the integration of proton magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy to PI-RADS 2 for prediction of high grade and high stage prostate cancer / Impacto da incorporação da espectroscopia por ressonância magnética ao PI-RADS 2 para a predição de câncer de próstata de alto grau e de estágio avançado

Abstract Objective: To compare the predictions of dominant Gleason pattern ≥ 4 or non-organ confined disease with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2) with or without proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI). Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine men underwent 3-tesla endorectal multiparametric MRI including 1H-MRSI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists assigned PI-RADS v2 and 1H-MRSI scores to index lesions. Statistical analyses used logistic regressions, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and 2x2 tables for diagnostic accuracies. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) were 85.7% (57.1%) and 92.9% (100%), and 56% (68.0%) and 24.0% (24.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of 1H-MRSI and PI-RADS v2 for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) were 64.0% (40%) and 20.0% (48%), and 50.0% (57.1%) and 71.4% (64.3%). The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer were 0.65 and 0.61 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.72 and 0.70 when combined with 1H-MRSI (readers 1 and 2, p = 0.04 and 0.21). For prediction of EPE the AUC were 0.54 and 0.60 for PI-RADS v2 and 0.55 and 0.61 when combined with 1H-MRSI (p > 0.05). Conclusion: 1H-MRSI might improve the discrimination of high-grade prostate cancer when combined to PI-RADS v2, particularly for PI-RADS v2 score 4 lesions, but it does not affect the prediction of EPE.

Resumo Objetivo: Comparar as predições de tumor com padrão 4 de Gleason dominante ou de tumor com extensão extraprostática utilizando o sistema Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2), combinado ou não a espectroscopia por ressonância magnética (1H-ERM). Materiais e Métodos: Trinta e nove pacientes submeteram-se a RM de 3 tesla com bobina endorretal, incluindo 1H-ERM, e prostatectomia. Dois radiologistas classificaram as principais lesões identificadas em cada caso utilizando PI-RADS v2 e escores de 1H-ERM. As análises estatísticas incluíram regressões logísticas, curvas receiver operating characteristic (ROC) e tabelas 2x2 para acurácia diagnóstica. Resultados: A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de câncer de próstata de alto grau foram 85,7% (57,1%) e 92,9% (100%), e 56% (68%) e 24% (24%). A sensibilidade e a especificidade da 1H-ERM e do PI-RADS v2 para a detecção de extensão extraprostática (EEP) foram 64,0% (40%) e 20% (48%), e 50% (57,1%) e 71,4% (64,3%). As áreas das curvas ROC para a predição de câncer de alto grau foram 0,65 e 0,61 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,72 e 0,70 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (radiologistas 1 e 2, p = 0.04 e 0.21). Para a predição de EEP, as áreas das curvas ROC foram 0,54 e 0,60 para PI-RADS v2 e 0,55 e 0,61 quando combinado com 1H-ERM (p > 0.05). Conclusão: É possível que a 1H-ERM melhore a predição de câncer de alto grau quando combinada ao PI-RADS v2, em particular para lesões que recebem um escore PI-RADS v2 4; entretanto, ela não afeta a predição de EEP.

Risk of catecholamine crisis in patients undergoing resection of unsuspected pheochromocytoma

PURPOSE: To report the risk of catecholamine crisis in patients undergoing resection of unsuspected pheochromocytoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, we retrospectively identified four patients who underwent resection of adrenal pheochromocytoma in whom the diagnosis was unsuspected based on preoperative clinical, biochemical, and imaging evaluation. RESULTS: None of the patients exhibited preoperative clinical features of catecholamine excess. Preoperative biochemical screening in two patients was normal. CT scan performed in all patients demonstrated a nonspecific enhancing adrenal mass. During surgical resection of the adrenal mass, hemodynamic instability was observed in two of four patients, and one of these two patients also suffered a myocardial infarct. CONCLUSION: Both surgeons and radiologists should maintain a high index of suspicion for pheochromocytoma, as the tumor can be asymptomatic, biochemically negative, and have nonspecific imaging features. Resection of such unsuspected pheochromocytomas carries a substantial risk of intraoperative hemodynamic instability.

T2-weighted endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the accuracy of T2-weighted endorectal MR imaging in the detection of prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy and to investigate the relationship between imaging accuracy and time since therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained and the study was HIPPA compliant. We identified 59 patients who underwent 1.5 Tesla endorectal MR imaging of the prostate between 1999 and 2006 after definitive external beam radiation therapy for biopsy-proven prostate cancer. Two readers recorded the presence or absence of tumor on T2-weighted images. Logistic regression and Fisher’s exact tests for 2x2 tables were used to determine the accuracy of imaging and investigate if accuracy differed between those imaged within 3 years of therapy (n = 25) and those imaged more than 3 years after therapy (n = 34). Transrectal biopsy was used as the standard of reference for the presence or absence of recurrent cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 59 patients (58 percent) had recurrent prostate cancer detected on biopsy. The overall accuracy of T2-weighted MR imaging in the detection cancer after external beam radiation therapy was 63 percent (37/59) for reader 1 and 71 percent for reader 2 (42/59). For both readers, logistic regression showed no difference in accuracy between those imaged within 3 years of therapy and those imaged more than 3 years after therapy (p = 0.86 for reader 1 and 0.44 for reader 2). CONCLUSION: T2-weighted endorectal MR imaging has low accuracy in the detection of prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy, irrespective of the time since therapy.