Local Extent of Prostate Cancer at MRI versus Prostatectomy Histopathology: Associations with Long-term Oncologic Outcomes.

Background It is unknown how the imperfect accuracy of MRI for local staging of prostate cancer relates to oncologic outcomes. Purpose To analyze how staging discordances between MRI and histopathologic evaluation relate to recurrence and survival after radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective analysis of preprostatectomy T2-weighted prostate MRI (January 2001 to December 2006). Extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion were assessed by using five-point Likert scales; scores of 4 or higher were classified as positive. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox models. Results A total of 2160 patients (median age, 60 years; interquartile range, 55-64 years) were evaluated. Among patients with histopathologic extraprostatic (pT3) disease (683 of 2160; 32%), those with organ-confined disease at MRI (384 of 683; 56%) experienced better outcomes than those with concordant extraprostatic disease at MRI and pathologic analysis: 15-year risk for BCR, 30% (95% CI: 22, 40) versus 68% (95% CI: 60, 75); risk for metastases, 14% (95% CI: 8.4, 24) versus 32% (95% CI: 26, 39); risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality, 3% (95% CI: 1, 6) versus 15% (95% CI: 9.5, 23) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Among patients with histopathologic organ-confined disease (pT2) (1477 of 2160; 68%), those with extraprostatic disease at MRI (102 of 1477; 7%) were at higher risk for BCR (27% [95% CI: 19, 37] vs 10% [95% CI: 8, 14]; P < .001), metastases (19% [95% CI: 6, 48] vs 3% [95% CI: 1, 6]; P < .001), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (2% [95% CI: 1, 9] vs 1% [95% CI: 0, 5]; P = .009) than those with concordant organ-confined disease at MRI and pathologic analysis. At multivariable analyses, tumor extent at MRI (hazard ratio range, 4.1-5.2) and histopathologic evaluation (hazard ratio range, 3.6-6.7) was associated with the risk for BCR, metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (P < .001 for all analyses). Conclusion The local extent of prostate cancer at MRI is associated with oncologic outcomes after prostatectomy, independent of pathologic tumor stage. This might inform a strategy on how to integrate MRI into a clinical staging algorithm. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Gottlieb in this issue.

[1]  M. Kattan,et al.  International Multi-Site Initiative to Develop an MRI-Inclusive Nomogram for Side-Specific Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer , 2021, Cancers.

[2]  H. Hricak,et al.  Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. , 2019, European urology oncology.

[3]  Shuang-Qing Chen,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detecting extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Clayton P Smith,et al.  A Grading System for the Assessment of Risk of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer at Multiparametric MRI. , 2019, Radiology.

[5]  A. Stenzinger,et al.  Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Prediction of Extraprostatic Disease-A Risk Model for Patient-tailored Risk Stratification When Planning Radical Prostatectomy. , 2020, European urology focus.

[6]  A. Vickers,et al.  Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer‐specific mortality in men with clinical low‐risk prostate cancer , 2018, BJU International.

[7]  T. Ye,et al.  Prognostic significance of six clinicopathological features for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Oncotarget.

[8]  V. Budach,et al.  Importance and outcome relevance of central pathology review in prostatectomy specimens: data from the SAKK 09/10 randomized trial on prostate cancer , 2017, BJU international.

[9]  J Alfred Witjes,et al.  Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. , 2016, European urology.

[10]  A. Vickers,et al.  Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes. , 2016, European urology.

[11]  Debiao Li,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[12]  Ulf R. Andersson,et al.  From the Editors: Explaining interaction effects within and across levels of analysis , 2014 .

[13]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Results from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Trial Number 4: a randomized controlled trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[14]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[15]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[16]  Taizo Shiraishi,et al.  Discrepancy between local and central pathological review of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[17]  F. Montorsi,et al.  A nomogram predicting long‐term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2008, Cancer.

[18]  J. Cooper Ajcc Cancer Staging Manual , 1997 .